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:quant-ph/0012042

A continuum local hidden variable model for the EPR experiment

László E. Szabó

Published Dec 9, 2000• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The paper is withdrawn by the author, due to the fact that in Larsson's Phys.Lett. A256 (1999) 245-252 (quant-ph/9901074) a similar model was published with even higher efficiency.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0012042

Related papers

A double slit and a position-momentum EPR correlation

Kouji Sugiyama

This paper has been withdrawn by the author, due to the fact that a similar paper (quant-ph/9904075) has been published.

arXiv:quant-ph/0105128•May 24, 2001•0 citations

Hidden‐Variables Model and Nonlocality in the Bohm/EPR Experiment

KENNETH H. SCHATIEN

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences•Apr 1, 1995•0 citations

A local hidden variables model for the measured EPR-type flavour entanglement in upsilon(4S)->B0B0bar decays

Emilio Santos

A local hidden variables model is exhibited which gives predictions in agreement with the quantum ones for the recent experiment by Go et al. quant-ph/0702267

arXiv:quant-ph/0703206•Mar 22, 2007•1 citation

A Local Mathematical Model for EPR-Experiments

Walter Philipp, K. Hess

In this paper we give a detailed and simplified version of our original mathematical model published first in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. We hope that this will clarify some misinterpretations of our original paper.

arXiv:quant-ph/0212085•Dec 13, 2002•1 citation

Event based simulation of an EPR-B experiment by local hidden variables: epr-simple and epr-clocked

Richard David Gill

In this note, I analyze the data generated by M. Fodje's (2013, 2014) simulation programs "epr-simple" and "epr-clocked". They were written in Python and published on Github. Inspection of the program descriptions showed that they made 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 signalling. His coincidence-loophole model is actually a clever modification of his detection-loophole model. Because of this, however, it cannot lead to optimal efficiency.

arXiv:1507.00106•Jul 1, 2015•0 citations

Hidden-variable models for the spin singlet. III. Local models reproducing the quantum mechanical predictions

Antonio Di Lorenzo

•May 6, 2011•0 citations
In this note, I analyze the data generated by M. Fodje's (2013, 2014) simulation programs "epr-simple" and "epr-clocked". They were written in Python and published on Github. Inspection of the program descriptions showed that they made 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 signalling. His coincidence-loophole model is actually a clever modification of his detection-loophole model. Because of this, however, it cannot lead to optimal efficiency.