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/9704045

Timing and Other Artifacts in EPR Experiments

Caroline H. Thompson

Published Apr 29, 1997• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Re-evaluation of the evidence (some of it unpublished) shows that experimenters conducting Einstein-Podolsky-Bohm (EPR) experiments may have been deceived by various pre-conceptions and artifacts.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.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9704045

Related papers

Timing, ``Accidentals'' and Other Artifacts in EPR Experiments

Caroline H. Thompson

Subtraction of ``accidentals'' in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments frequently changes results compatible with local realism into ones that appear to demonstrate non-locality. The validity of the procedure depends on the unproven assumption of the independence of emission events. Other possible sources of bias include enhancement, imperfect synchronisation, over-reliance on rotational invariance, and the well-known detection loophole. Investigation of existing results may be more fruitful than attempts at loophole-free Bell tests, improving our understanding of light.

arXiv:quant-ph/9711044•Nov 20, 1997•4 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

Data analysis of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm laboratory experiments

Hans A. De Raedt, F. Jin, K. Michielsen

Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum theory. Although these experiments generate data that violate Bell inequalities for suitable choices of the time-coincidence window, the analysis shows that it is highly unlikely that these data sets are compatible with the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB experiment, suggesting that the popular statements that EPRB experiments agree with quantum theory lack a solid scientific basis and that more precise experiments are called for.

arXiv:1312.6361•Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Oct 1, 2013•21 citations

Data analysis of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm laboratory experiments

Hans A. De Raedt, Fengping Jin, Kristel F. L. Michielsen

Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum theory. Although these experiments generate data that violate Bell inequalities for suitable choices of the time-coincidence window, the analysis shows that it is highly unlikely that these data sets are compatible with the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB experiment, suggesting that the popular statements that EPRB experiments agree with quantum theory lack a solid scientific basis and that more precise experiments are called for.

•Jan 1, 2013•23 citations

One less quantum mystery

Aloysius F. Kracklauer

A classical model for 'Franson'-type Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) experiments is described and compared with alternative, local, realistic models to be found in the literature. A brief analysis is presented which shows that such a model is possible because of unrecognized assumptions in Bohm's reformulation of the EPR gedanken experiment which preclude its use for addressing EPR's challenge.

Journal of Optics B Quantum and Semiclassical Optics•Aug 1, 2002•1 citation

Testing EPR

Jonathan A. Jones, Dieter Jaksch

Quantum physics violates the basic assumptions of local realism. Particles can be entangled with each other in ways that allow correlations stronger than possible in classical physics. This was first realized by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) in 1935 and led them to conclude that quantum theory was incomplete. It took about 30 years before J. S. Bell found observable consequences of this phenomenon by showing how entangled states violate inequalities for two-particle correlations derived purely from the assumption that the world obeys local realism. Violations of Bell inequalities were first observed experimentally in the Aspect experiment, which will be discussed below. Such experiments are technically challenging and care is needed to avoid any loopholes in the experimental setup that would still permit the description of the experiments by a local realistic theory. Bell inequalities describe violations of local realism on average, meaning that each individual experimental outcome could occur in a local realistic theory. It is the statistics of these outcomes that violates local realism. In contrast, another class of quantum states, so-called Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) states, which contain three particles, can be shown to violate local realism in each measurement outcome. We will also discuss this class of states and experiments by Zeilinger's group, which demonstrated this type of violation of local realism for the first time. Our aim here is not to discuss the exact relations between quantum entanglement, non-locality and realism, and their physical and philosophical implications. While this is a highly interesting topic which attracts a lot of attention from researchers, such an exploration would go beyond the scope of this book.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 19, 2012•0 citations
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.
Subtraction of ``accidentals'' in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments frequently changes results compatible with local realism into ones that appear to demonstrate non-locality. The validity of the procedure depends on the unproven assumption of the independence of emission events. Other possible sources of bias include enhancement, imperfect synchronisation, over-reliance on rotational invariance, and the well-known detection loophole. Investigation of existing results may be more fruitful than attempts at loophole-free Bell tests, improving our understanding of light.
Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum theory. Although these experiments generate data that violate Bell inequalities for suitable choices of the time-coincidence window, the analysis shows that it is highly unlikely that these data sets are compatible with the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB experiment, suggesting that the popular statements that EPRB experiments agree with quantum theory lack a solid scientific basis and that more precise experiments are called for.
Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum theory. Although these experiments generate data that violate Bell inequalities for suitable choices of the time-coincidence window, the analysis shows that it is highly unlikely that these data sets are compatible with the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB experiment, suggesting that the popular statements that EPRB experiments agree with quantum theory lack a solid scientific basis and that more precise experiments are called for.
Quantum physics violates the basic assumptions of local realism. Particles can be entangled with each other in ways that allow correlations stronger than possible in classical physics. This was first realized by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) in 1935 and led them to conclude that quantum theory was incomplete. It took about 30 years before J. S. Bell found observable consequences of this phenomenon by showing how entangled states violate inequalities for two-particle correlations derived purely from the assumption that the world obeys local realism. Violations of Bell inequalities were first observed experimentally in the Aspect experiment, which will be discussed below. Such experiments are technically challenging and care is needed to avoid any loopholes in the experimental setup that would still permit the description of the experiments by a local realistic theory. Bell inequalities describe violations of local realism on average, meaning that each individual experimental outcome could occur in a local realistic theory. It is the statistics of these outcomes that violates local realism. In contrast, another class of quantum states, so-called Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) states, which contain three particles, can be shown to violate local realism in each measurement outcome. We will also discuss this class of states and experiments by Zeilinger's group, which demonstrated this type of violation of local realism for the first time. Our aim here is not to discuss the exact relations between quantum entanglement, non-locality and realism, and their physical and philosophical implications. While this is a highly interesting topic which attracts a lot of attention from researchers, such an exploration would go beyond the scope of this book.