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

AIP conference proceedings

Anomalies in EPR-Bell Experiments

Guillaume Adenier

Published Jan 1, 2006• 22 citations
Publisher

Abstract

A new analysis of the Weihs et al 1998 experimental raw data is given. Using a new normalization procedure based on the statistics of the single counts, we investigate seemingly unimportant anomalies in the coincidence count rates. We show that interpreting these anomalies within a quantum mechanical framework is problematic as they imply that the fair sampling assumption is untenable.

DOI
10.1063/1.2158730

Related papers

Is the fair sampling assumption supported by EPR experiments?

Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We analyse optical EPR experimental data performed by Weihs et al in Innsbruck 1997–1998. We show that for some linear combinations of the raw coincidence rates, the experimental results display some anomalous behaviour that a more general source state (like non-maximally entangled state) cannot straightforwardly account for. We attempt to explain these anomalies by taking account of the relative efficiencies of the four channels. For this purpose, we use the fair sampling assumption, and assume explicitly that the detection efficiencies for the pairs of entangled photons can be written as a product of the two corresponding detection efficiencies for the single photons. We show that this explicit use of fair sampling cannot be maintained to be a reasonable assumption as it leads to an apparent violation of the no-signalling principle.

arXiv:quant-ph/0606122•Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics•Dec 19, 2006•118 citations

Explaining Counts from EPRB Experiments: Are They Consistent with Quantum Theory?

James H. Bigelow

I have fit data from EPRB experiments of Weihs et al to a model that consists of an EPRB thought experiment whose output is filtered. The filter implements the assumptions made by most investigators: that EPRB experiments satisfy a fair sampling assumption; and that detections and coincidences occur randomly with Poisson distributions (this provides a basis for calculating standard errors of coincidence counts, correlations, and so forth). The model does not fit the data-predicted and observed counts of detections and coincidences differ far too much, by a chi-square criterion. Logically, one must give up fair sampling and/or Poisson errors and/or the assumption that the data derive ultimately from an EPRB thought experiment. In the literature, giving up fair sampling seems to be coupled to giving up EPRB, but to me it seems just as sensible to keep EPRB and to give up fair sampling and Poisson errors. Some rather ordinary mechanisms can violate fair sampling, and there is the possibility in any experiment for uncontrolled and unmonitored factors to contribute to unwanted variation. By sufficiently relaxing the fair sampling and Poisson assumptions-it doesn't take much-my model can be made to fit the data.

arXiv:1112.3399•Dec 15, 2011•3 citations

Fair sampling and rotational invariance in EPR experiments

Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We have previously shown that the use of the fair sampling assumption in EPR experiments could be questioned on the basis of experimental data. We continue our analysis of the data from the optical EPR experimental performed by Weihs et al. in Innsbruck 1997-1998, and we discuss whether a non-rotationally invariant source can account for the experimental results.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Aug 26, 2007•0 citations

Experimental Scheme to Test the Fair Sampling Assumption in EPR-Bell Experiments

Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We propose here an experimental test of the fair sampling assumption in two-channel EPR-Bell experiments for which the detection loophole holds.

arXiv:quant-ph/0309010•Aug 31, 2003•1 citation

Anomalies in experimental data for the EPR-Bohm experiment: Are both classical and quantum mechanics wrong?

Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We analyze anomalies in data to test the violation of Bell's inequality for the EPR-Bohm experiment. We found that the experimental correlations for photon polarization have an intriguing property. In the experimental data there are visible non-negligible deviations of probabilities $P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β) $ from the predictions of quantum mechanics, namely, $P_{++}(α, β)=P_{--}(α, β)= {1/2}\cos^2(α-β)$ and $P_{+-}=P_{-+}(α, β)={1/2}\sin^2(α-β).$ However, in some mysterious way those deviations compensate each other and finally the correlation $E^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)= P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)+ P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)$ is in the complete agreement with the QM-prediction, namely, $E(α, β)= P_{++}(α, β)- P_{+-}(α, β)- P_{-+}(α, β)+ P_{--}(α, β)= \cos 2(α-β).$ Therefore such anomalies play no role in the Bell's inequality framework. Nevertheless, other linear combinations of experimental probabilities do not have such a compensation property. There can be found non-negligible deviations from predictions of quantum mechanics. Thus neither classical nor quantum model can pass the whole family of statistical tests given by all possible linear combinations of the EPR-Bohm probabilities. Does it mean that both models are wrong?

arXiv:quant-ph/0607172•Jul 25, 2006•6 citations

Timing and Other Artifacts in EPR Experiments

Caroline H. Thompson

Re-evaluation of the evidence (some of it unpublished) shows that experimenters conducting Einstein-Podolsky-Bohm (EPR) experiments may have been deceived by various pre-conceptions and artifacts. False or unproven assumptions were made regarding, in some cases, fair sampling, in others timing, accidental coincidences and enhancement. Realist possibilities, assuming a purely wave model of light, are presented heuristically, and suggestions given for fruitful lines of research. Quantum Mechanics can be proved false, but Bell tests have turned out to be unsuitable for the task.

arXiv:quant-ph/9704045•Apr 29, 1997•0 citations
A new analysis of the Weihs et al 1998 experimental raw data is given. Using a new normalization procedure based on the statistics of the single counts, we investigate seemingly unimportant anomalies in the coincidence count rates. We show that interpreting these anomalies within a quantum mechanical framework is problematic as they imply that the fair sampling assumption is untenable.
We analyse optical EPR experimental data performed by Weihs et al in Innsbruck 1997–1998. We show that for some linear combinations of the raw coincidence rates, the experimental results display some anomalous behaviour that a more general source state (like non-maximally entangled state) cannot straightforwardly account for. We attempt to explain these anomalies by taking account of the relative efficiencies of the four channels. For this purpose, we use the fair sampling assumption, and assume explicitly that the detection efficiencies for the pairs of entangled photons can be written as a product of the two corresponding detection efficiencies for the single photons. We show that this explicit use of fair sampling cannot be maintained to be a reasonable assumption as it leads to an apparent violation of the no-signalling principle.
I have fit data from EPRB experiments of Weihs et al to a model that consists of an EPRB thought experiment whose output is filtered. The filter implements the assumptions made by most investigators: that EPRB experiments satisfy a fair sampling assumption; and that detections and coincidences occur randomly with Poisson distributions (this provides a basis for calculating standard errors of coincidence counts, correlations, and so forth). The model does not fit the data-predicted and observed counts of detections and coincidences differ far too much, by a chi-square criterion. Logically, one must give up fair sampling and/or Poisson errors and/or the assumption that the data derive ultimately from an EPRB thought experiment. In the literature, giving up fair sampling seems to be coupled to giving up EPRB, but to me it seems just as sensible to keep EPRB and to give up fair sampling and Poisson errors. Some rather ordinary mechanisms can violate fair sampling, and there is the possibility in any experiment for uncontrolled and unmonitored factors to contribute to unwanted variation. By sufficiently relaxing the fair sampling and Poisson assumptions-it doesn't take much-my model can be made to fit the data.
We analyze anomalies in data to test the violation of Bell's inequality for the EPR-Bohm experiment. We found that the experimental correlations for photon polarization have an intriguing property. In the experimental data there are visible non-negligible deviations of probabilities $P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β) $ from the predictions of quantum mechanics, namely, P++(α,β)=P−−(α,β)=1/2cos⁡2(α−β)P_{++}(α, β)=P_{--}(α, β)= {1/2}\cos^2(α-β)P++​(α,β)=P−−​(α,β)=1/2cos2(α−β) and P+−=P−+(α,β)=1/2sin⁡2(α−β).P_{+-}=P_{-+}(α, β)={1/2}\sin^2(α-β).P+−​=P−+​(α,β)=1/2sin2(α−β). However, in some mysterious way those deviations compensate each other and finally the correlation Eexp(α,β)=P++exp(α,β)−P+−exp(α,β)−P−+exp(α,β)+P−−exp(α,β)E^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)= P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)+ P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)Eexp(α,β)=P++exp​(α,β)−P+−exp​(α,β)−P−+exp​(α,β)+P−−exp​(α,β) is in the complete agreement with the QM-prediction, namely, E(α,β)=P++(α,β)−P+−(α,β)−P−+(α,β)+P−−(α,β)=cos⁡2(α−β).E(α, β)= P_{++}(α, β)- P_{+-}(α, β)- P_{-+}(α, β)+ P_{--}(α, β)= \cos 2(α-β).E(α,β)=P++​(α,β)−P+−​(α,β)−P−+​(α,β)+P−−​(α,β)=cos2(α−β). Therefore such anomalies play no role in the Bell's inequality framework. Nevertheless, other linear combinations of experimental probabilities do not have such a compensation property. There can be found non-negligible deviations from predictions of quantum mechanics. Thus neither classical nor quantum model can pass the whole family of statistical tests given by all possible linear combinations of the EPR-Bohm probabilities. Does it mean that both models are wrong?
Re-evaluation of the evidence (some of it unpublished) shows that experimenters conducting Einstein-Podolsky-Bohm (EPR) experiments may have been deceived by various pre-conceptions and artifacts. False or unproven assumptions were made regarding, in some cases, fair sampling, in others timing, accidental coincidences and enhancement. Realist possibilities, assuming a purely wave model of light, are presented heuristically, and suggestions given for fruitful lines of research. Quantum Mechanics can be proved false, but Bell tests have turned out to be unsuitable for the task.