CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,402Quantum Mechanics and ApplicationsQuantum Information and CryptographyNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories

Strong Loophole-Free Test of Local Realism

Open access
Shalm, Lynden K., Meyer-Scott, Evan, Christensen, Bradley G., Bierhorst, Peter, Wayne, Michael A., Stevens, Martin J., Gerrits, Thomas, Glancy, Scott +26 more·2015·Physical Review Letters
DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.115.250402PMC PMC5815856
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We present a loophole-free violation of local realism using entangled photon pairs. We ensure that all relevant events in our Bell test are spacelike separated by placing the parties far enough apart and by using fast random number generators and high-speed polarization measurements. A high-quality polarization-entangled source of photons, combined with high-efficiency, low-noise, single-photon detectors, allows us to make measurements without requiring any fair-sampling assumptions. Using a hypothesis test, we compute p values as small as 5.9×10^{-9} for our Bell violation while maintaining the spacelike separation of our events. We estimate the degree to which a local realistic system could predict our measurement choices. Accounting for this predictability, our smallest adjusted p value is 2.3×10^{-7}. We therefore reject the hypothesis that local realism governs our experiment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevlett.115.250402

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A fully rigorous demonstration that the Local Friendliness assumptions are untenable would require a more plausible observer and implementing shot-by-shot randomized measurement settings and closing separation, efficiency, and freedom-of-choice loopholes.

    “A fully rigorous demonstration that the LF assumptions are untenable would require, in addition to a more plausible 'observer', implementing shot-by-shot randomized measurement settings and closing separation, efficiency, and freedom-ofchoice loopholes, similarly to the case of Bell inequality violations [30-32].”

    From A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox (2020) · cites this paper as [32]

    The paper’s discussion of Bell-test requirements supports fast, per-trial random measurement choices, spacelike separation, and avoiding the detector-efficiency loophole. It says the freedom-of-choice loophole can be constrained by spacelike separation but “can never in principle be closed,” so the claim overstates that part of the Bell-test analogy. The proposal for a more plausible observer concerns the citing authors’ LF experiment, not a finding attributed to this Bell-test paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. [1]Bell JS Epistemological Letters 1975 2
  2. [2]Holland P Found. Phys 2005 35 177 arXiv:quant-ph/0401017 · arXiv
  3. [7]Einstein A Born M Born H The Born-Einstein Letters: the Correspondence between Max & Hedwig Born and Albert Einstein 1916/1955 1971 1st London and Basingstoke The MacMillan Press Ltd
  4. [12]Aspect A Grangier P Roger G Phys. Rev. Lett 1981 47 460 10034132
  5. [13]Aspect A Grangier P Roger G Phys. Rev. Lett 1982 49 91 10034132
  6. [15]Genovese M Phys. Rep 2005 413 319 arXiv:quant-ph/0701071 · arXiv
  7. [16]Larsson J-Å J. Phys. A 2014 47 424003 arXiv:1407.0363 · arXiv
  8. [17]Abellan C Amaya W Mitrani D Pruneri V Mitchell MW ArXiv e-prints 2015 arXiv:1506.02712 [quant-ph] 26722907 · arXiv
  9. [18]Mitchell MW Abellan C Amaya W Phys. Rev. A 2015 91 012314 26722907
  10. [19]Eberhard PH Phys. Rev. A 1993 47 R747 9909100
  11. [20]Weihs G Jennewein T Simon C Weinfurter H Zeilinger A Phys. Rev. Lett 1998 81 5039 arXiv:9810080 10990782
  12. [21]Rowe MA Kielpinski D Meyer V Sackett CA Itano WM Monroe C Wineland DJ Nature 2001 409 791 11236986
  13. [22]Scheidl T Ursin R Koer J Ramelow S Ma X-S Herbst T Ratschbacher L Fedrizzi A Langford NK Jennewein T Zeilinger A Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2010 107 19708 arXiv:0811.3129 21041665 PMC2993398 · arXiv
  14. [23]Giustina M Mech A Ramelow S Wittmann B Koer J Beyer J Lita A Calkins B Gerrits T Nam SW Ursin R Zeilinger A Nature 2013 497 227 arXiv:1212.0533 23584590 · arXiv
  15. [24]Christensen BG McCusker KT Altepeter JB Calkins B Gerrits T Lita AE Miller A Shalm LK Zhang Y Nam SW Brunner N Lim CCW Gisin N Kwiat PG Phys. Rev. Lett 2013 111 130406 arXiv:1306.5772 24116754 · arXiv
  16. [25]Hensen B Bernien H Dreau AE Reiserer A Kalb N Blok MS Ruitenberg J Vermeulen RFL Schouten RN Abellan C Amaya W Pruneri V Mitchell MW Markham M Twitchen DJ Elkouss D Wehner S Taminiau TH Hanson R Nature 2015 526 682 26503041
  17. [26]Giustina M Versteegh MAM Wengerowsky S Handsteiner J Hochrainer A Phelan K Steinlechner F Koer J Larsson J-A Abellan C Amaya W Pruneri V Mitchell MW Beyer J Gerrits T Lita AE Shalm LK Nam SW Scheidl T Ursin R Wittmann B Zeilinger A ArXiv e-prints 2015 arXiv:1511.03190 [quant-ph] 26722905 · arXiv
  18. [28]Shao J Mathematical Statistics, Springer Texts in Statistics 1998 2nd New York Springer 126 127 See
  19. [29]Pironio S Acín A Massar S de la Giroday AB Matsukevich DN Maunz P Olmschenk S Hayes D Luo L Manning TA Monroe C Nature 2010 464 1021 arXiv:0911.3427 20393558 · arXiv
  20. [30]Gill RD Moore M Froda S Léger C Mathematical Statistics and Applications: Festschrift for Constance van Eeden 2003 42 Beachwood, Ohio Institute of Mathematical Statistics 133 154 arXiv:quant-ph/0110137 · arXiv
  21. [33]Evans PG Bennink RS Grice WP Humble TS Schaake J Phys. Rev. Lett 2010 105 253601 21231588
  22. [35]Marsili F Verma VB Stern JA Harrington S Lita AE Gerrits T Vayshenker I Baek B Shaw MD Mirin RP Nam SW Nature Photonics 2013 7 210 arXiv:1209.5774 · arXiv
  23. [38]Bierhorst P 2013 arXiv:1312.2999 · arXiv
  24. [39]Zhang Y Glancy S Knill E Phys. Rev. A 2011 84 062118 arXiv:1108.2468 · arXiv
  25. [40]Zhang Y Glancy S Knill E Phys. Rev. A 2013 88 052119 arXiv:1303.7464 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shalm, L. K., Meyer-Scott, E., Christensen, B. G., Bierhorst, P., Wayne, M. A., Stevens, M. J., Gerrits, T., Glancy, S., Hamel, D. R., Allman, M. S., Coakley, K. J., Dyer, S. D., Hodge, C., Lita, A. E., Verma, V. B., Lambrocco, C., Tortorici, E., Migdall, A. L., Zhang, Y., Kumor, D. R., Farr, W. H., Marsili, F., Shaw, M. D., Stern, J. A., Abellán, C., Amaya, W., Pruneri, V., Jennewein, T., Mitchell, M. W., Kwiat, P. G., Bienfang, J. C., Mirin, R. P., Knill, E., & Nam, S. W.
Affiliations
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Université de Moncton (CA)
  • Jet Propulsion Laboratory (US)
  • Institute of Photonic Sciences (ES)
  • Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ES)
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2015-12-16
Volume
115
Issue
25
Pages
250402-250402
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.115.250402
PMC
PMC5815856
OpenAlex
W2762179548
Cited by
1,402
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 77 · 2025: 102 · 2024: 127 · 2023: 156 · 2022: 121 · 2021: 130 · 2020: 132 · 2019: 159 · 2018: 138 · 2017: 139 · 2016: 109 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
66.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology
  • National Science Foundation (PHY 12-05870)
  • Army Research Office
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-13-0627)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
  • Industry Canada
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • European Research Council
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (FIS2011-23520)
  • European Commission (TEC2013-46168-R)
  • Fundación Cellex
  • New Brunswick Innovation Foundation
  • FET
  • EPEC (FIS2014-62181-EXP)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Keywords
loophole-free Bell tests, local realism, entangled photon pairs, polarization entanglement, spacelike separation, fair sampling assumption, single-photon detectors, hypothesis testing, quantum nonlocality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review