2015/07/01 by Richard D. Gill, Gill, Richard D.
Computer Science · Engineering · Physics and Astronomy · #81P45 #FOS: Physical sciences #Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture #Quantum Mechanics and Applications #Quantum Physics (quant-ph) #Radiation Effects in Electronics #msc:81P45 #quant-ph
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1507.00106
This is version 11 of this preprint. Earlier versions incorrectly stated that documentation of Michel Fodje's simulation was inexistent. This version also contains better explanation of my terminology. It is also posted on Researchers.one, article 2020-01-1. Another version on preprints.org, preprints202001.0045, is being updated
openalex publication_date 2015/07/01 · openalex created_date 2019/06/27 · arxiv created 2021/04/10 · arxiv updated 2021/04/13 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
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.