The EPR Experiment—Thoughts about the “Loophole”a

Cyrus D. Cantrell, Marlan O. Scully

Roman Schnabel

In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen ('EPR') reported on a thought experiment that they believed showed that quantum theory provided an incomplete description of reality. Today we know that quantum theory is a complete and correct description of Nature (in flat space-time). The EPR thought experiment is predicted by quantum theory and has since been experimentally confirmed. However, EPR experiments have no physical pictorial explanation, and are considered part of a "paradox". Here I resolve the "paradox". I show independently of any interpretation of quantum theory that EPR (thought) experiments are a direct and compelling consequence of the existence of true randomness and the conservation of energy. It becomes obvious why EPR (thought) experiments allow for the precise prediction of truly random measurement values. Local hidden variables are not motivated.

Philippe H. Eberhard

Richard David Gill

In this note, I analyze the data generated by M. Fodje's (2013) simulation programs "epr-simple" and "epr-clocked". They were written in Python and published on Github. Inspection of the program descriptions shows that they make use of the detection-loophole and the coincidence-loophole respectively. I evaluate them with appropriate modified Bell-CHSH type inequalities: the Larsson detection-loophole adjusted CHSH, and the Larsson-Gill coincidence-loophole adjusted CHSH (NB: its correctness is conjecture, we do not have proof). The experimental efficiencies turn out to be approximately eta = 81% (close to optimal) and gamma = 55% (far from optimal). The observed values of CHSH are, as they should be, within the appropriately adjusted bounds. Fodjes' detection-loophole model turns out to be very, very close to Pearle's famous 1970 model, so the efficiency is close to optimal. The model has the same defect as Pearle's: the joint detection rates exhibit signaling. Fodje's coincidence-loophole model is actually a clever modification of his detection-loophole model. Because of this, however, it cannot lead to optimal efficiency.

Richard David Gill

In this note, I analyze the data generated by M. Fodje's (2013) simulation programs "epr-simple" and "epr-clocked". They were written in Python and published on Github. Inspection of the program descriptions shows that they make use of the detection-loophole and the coincidence-loophole respectively. I evaluate them with appropriate modified Bell-CHSH type inequalities: the Larsson detection-loophole adjusted CHSH, and the Larsson-Gill coincidence-loophole adjusted CHSH (NB: its correctness is conjecture, we do not have proof). The experimental efficiencies turn out to be approximately eta = 81% (close to optimal) and gamma = 55% (far from optimal). The observed values of CHSH are, as they should be, within the appropriately adjusted bounds. Fodjes' detection-loophole model turns out to be very, very close to Pearle's famous 1970 model, so the efficiency is close to optimal. The model has the same defect as Pearle's: the joint detection rates exhibit signaling. Fodje's coincidence-loophole model is actually a clever modification of his detection-loophole model. Because of this, however, it cannot lead to optimal efficiency.

F. Selleri