Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Violation of Bell Inequality with Unentangled Photons

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper reports a CHSH Bell-inequality violation from four unentangled photons whose creation histories are made indistinguishable by path identity.

desk verdict Clean experiment, impressive visibility, but the CHSH violation is an artifact of the outcome-inference rule: this is not a Bell test. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07756 v1 pith:CLT52OS5 submitted 2025-07-10 quant-ph physics.optics

Kai Wang , Zhaohua Hou , Kaiyi Qian , Leizhen Chen , Mario Krenn , Markus Aspelmeyer , Anton Zeilinger , Shining Zhu
show 1 more author
Xiao-Song Ma
This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.optics MSC 81P4081P1581V80 PACS 03.65.Ud42.50.Xa
keywords BellinequalityCHSHquantumindistinguishabilitypathidentitymultiphotonfrustratedinterferenceunentangledphotonsnonlocalityfour-photon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports a violation of the CHSH Bell inequality, S = 2.275 ± 0.057, in a four-photon interferometer in which the photons are not entangled. The authors arrange four spontaneous parametric down-conversion sources so that two alternative ways of producing one four-photon coincidence are indistinguishable; the coincidence rate then oscillates as cos(alpha + beta). Following the standard Bell-test formalism, they map phase-shifted coincidence counts to outcomes and find the classical bound of 2 exceeded by more than four standard deviations. They argue the effect is caused by quantum indistinguishability through path identity, not by entanglement, which is why it matters: it separates Bell-violating correlation from entanglement as a resource. If the interpretation holds, local realism conflicts with quantum mechanics even for unentangled multi-photon interference.

What carries the argument

The engine of the experiment is multiphoton frustrated interference created by path identity: four SPDC sources are arranged so two distinct pair-creation histories lead to the same four-photon detection event, and because the photons on each path are identical in every degree of freedom, no which-source information exists. The fourfold-coincidence rate therefore depends jointly on Alice's and Bob's phases through N(alpha, beta) proportional to 2 + 2 cos(alpha + beta). The Bell test is carried by a measurement-outcome mapping, Eqs. (9)–(14): since the interferometer has no -1 outputs, counts taken with the phase shifted by pi are identified with the complementary outcomes, in analogy to polarizer-based Bell tests using Malus's law, yielding E(alpha, beta) = cos(alpha + beta) and a CHSH S that reaches 2√2 at the chosen settings.

What would settle it

Measure, at a single phase setting, all four coincidence outcomes with explicit +1 and -1 output ports and recompute S from the directly observed joint counts; if S drops to 2 or below, the reported violation is an artifact of the pi-shift inference. Alternatively, exhibit a local hidden-variable model that reproduces the measured fourfold counts under the same outcome mapping.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Bell-inequality violation does not require entanglement, provided the alternative creation processes that lead to the detected photons are made indistinguishable. In the setup, four crystals are coherently pumped and their signal and idler modes are overlaid so that the four-photon coincidence can be attributed either to sources I and II or to sources III and IV without any which-source information. Post-selecting on fourfold coincidences gives a rate N($\alpha$, $\beta$) = $g^{4}$ N0 [2 + 2 cos($\alpha$ + $\beta$)], so the normalized correlation function is E($\alpha$, $\beta$) = cos($\alpha$ + $\beta$). Using phase-shifted settings to stand in for the missing -1 outcomes, the authors construct the CHSH parameter and measure S = 2.275 ± 0.057, a violation of the inequality S ≤ 2 by more than four standard deviations. They explicitly check that vacuum–four-photon entanglement cannot account for the result (S_vac = 1.467 ± 0.009), and that Alice's and Bob's local twofold coincidences show no phase dependence, leaving path-identity-based indistinguishability as the proposed origin of the nonlocal correlation.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on treating a measurement taken with the phase shifted by pi as if it observed the opposite outcome, and on keeping only four-photon events; if a classical account can exploit either the substitution or the discarded events, the apparent violation can disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Four-photon frustrated interference can produce a CHSH violation without an entangled state, so Bell-type nonlocality and entanglement are experimentally separable phenomena.
  • The joint correlation survives while local two-photon coincidence counts are flat, so the interference witness lives in the joint statistics rather than in the local marginal rates.
  • Because the phase settings can in principle be made spacelike separated, the scheme offers a route to Bell tests whose nonlocal resource is indistinguishability rather than an entangled source.
  • The measured violation also bounds the contribution of vacuum entanglement: with g = 0.096 the vacuum–four-photon term alone gives S_vac = 1.467, below the classical limit, meaning the observed S > 2 requires the multiphoton indistinguishability term.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the interpretation holds, path identity should be regarded as a distinct resource for nonlocal correlations, separate from entanglement; one testable consequence is that the violation should persist for genuinely separable single-photon wave packets with fully erased which-source information.
  • A direct experimental extension would add explicit -1 output ports so that both outcomes are counted at the same phase setting, checking whether the inferred joint probabilities of Eqs. (9)–(12) agree with directly measured ones; disagreement would localize the effect's origin in the inference assumption.
  • One could repeat the experiment with fast, random, spacelike-separated switching of alpha and beta to close the locality loophole; if the violation persists, it would show that indistinguishability alone can violate local realism under strict locality conditions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a four-photon frustrated interference experiment in which four SPDC sources are arranged so that two possible pair-creation processes are path-identical. The authors measure four-fold coincidence counts as a function of Alice's and Bob's phases, observe a cosine interference with visibility around 0.78, and then construct CHSH correlation functions by identifying phase-shifted coincidence counts as the '-1' outcomes (Eqs. 9-12 and 14). They report S = 2.275 ± 0.057, a violation of the CHSH inequality by more than four standard deviations, and interpret this as a Bell violation that arises from quantum indistinguishability by path identity rather than from entanglement.

Significance. The experiment itself is a clean and careful implementation of multi-photon frustrated interference, with raw coincidence data, visibility fits, and Poissonian error bars; the observed visibilities are well above the 1/sqrt(2) threshold, and the authors are transparent about the open locality and sampling loopholes. If a genuine violation of Bell's inequality were established, the result would be conceptually striking: it would connect Bell nonlocality to quantum indistinguishability without bipartite entanglement. However, the Bell-test interpretation is not established, because the '-1' outcomes are not measured but are inferred from phase-shifted '+1' counts, an extra assumption that is not protected by Bell's theorem and that in fact allows a local hidden-variable model to reproduce the same S value. The manuscript is therefore not yet a demonstration of a Bell violation under standard assumptions, though the underlying interference measurement is valuable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, Eqs. (9)-(12) and (14)] The joint probabilities used to compute the Bell parameter are not measured directly. The text states 'in our experiment, there is no -1 output,' and Eqs. (9)-(12) define N(+1,-1|alpha,beta) as N(+1,+1|alpha,beta+pi), and similarly for the other outcomes. This identifies a pi phase shift as implementing the complement of the '+1' outcome. That identification is an additional physical assumption that need not hold in a local hidden-variable model. With this assumption, the constructed correlation reduces to E(alpha,beta) = V cos(alpha+beta), and S = 2sqrt(2)V, so the 'violation' is equivalent to a visibility measurement. A local model with settings-dependent detection efficiencies can reproduce the observed counts N(alpha,beta) proportional to 1 + V cos(alpha+beta) and, under the same inference rule, yields S = 2sqrt(2)V > 2. Thus the reported violation does not by itself rule out local realism.
  2. [Results, Eq. (8) and Table A1] The quantity S in Eq. (8) is not a standard CHSH parameter because the four 'outcomes' in the denominator of Eq. (14) are not outcomes of a single setting pair (alpha,beta) for the same four-photon events; they are coincidence counts from four different phase settings and hence from different emission events. Bell's inequality S <= 2 applies to expectation values of products of local outcomes defined on a common probability space for each setting pair. Without directly measured +/-1 outcomes per setting, the CHSH bound does not apply to the constructed quantity. The analogy to polarizer-based Bell tests in Methods and Appendix A4 is misleading: in two-channel polarizer experiments both outcomes are measured for the same setting, and in one-channel experiments the relevant inequality is the Clauser-Horne inequality, not CHSH.
  3. [Abstract and Results] The claim that the observed effect 'cannot be described by quantum entanglement in the system' is not substantiated by the present analysis. Even if the post-selected four-photon state is unentangled, the experiment as analyzed demonstrates an interference visibility above 1/sqrt(2), not a Bell violation under standard assumptions. The conclusion that local realism is violated is conditional on the outcome-inference assumption and on post-selection, both of which are acknowledged in the text. The manuscript should state clearly and prominently that the reported S is a visibility-based quantity defined under these assumptions, and should not present the result as a loophole-free or assumption-free violation of Bell's inequality.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Discussion] There is a typo in the Discussion: 'local hidden varaible' should be 'local hidden variable'.
  2. [Acknowledgments] The heading 'ACKNOWLEDEGEMENT' is misspelled; it should be 'ACKNOWLEDGMENTS'.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption lists values such as '0.7660.029' and '0.7840.028' without the plus-minus symbol; these should read '0.766 +/- 0.029' and '0.784 +/- 0.028'.
  4. [Methods, Eq. (14)] The notation in Eq. (14) is compressed and hard to parse; writing out the four cases explicitly or defining the mapping (a,b) -> (alpha + (1-a)/2 pi, beta + (1-b)/2 pi) would improve readability.
  5. [Appendix A4] The statement 'we adopt the fair-sampling assumption to ensure the validity of our results' is important and should appear in the main text, not only in the appendix, and its precise content (that unmeasured -1 counts equal phase-shifted +1 counts) should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported Bell violation reduces by construction to the measured four-photon interference visibility: the unobserved '-1' outcome is defined as the '+1' count at a π-shifted phase, so S=2.275 restates V>1/√2.

  1. self definitional [Methods, Eqs. (9)-(14); Results text after Eq. (6)]
    "However, in our experiment, there is no -1 output. Therefore, based on Eqs (9)-(12), we use the following instead: p (a, b|α, β) = N (+1, +1|α + 1−a/2 π, β+ 1−b/2 π) / [N (+1, +1|α, β) + N (+1, +1|α, β+ π) + N (+1, +1|α + π, β) + N (+1, +1|α + π, β+ π)] (14)."

    The '-1' outcome is not measured; it is defined as the '+1' coincidence count at a π-shifted setting. Given the measured count N(α,β) ∝ 1+V cos(α+β), Eqs. (9)-(12) and (14) force p(+1,+1|α,β)=1/4+1/4cos(α+β) and the three other constructed probabilities to be its complements. Eq. (7) then gives E(α,β)=cos(α+β) identically, so S=2√2 V by construction. The Bell test is therefore not performed over fixed, independently defined binary outcomes; the inequality violation is a restatement of the cosine fringe visibility.

  2. renaming known result [Results and Appendix A4 (S-V relation)]
    "We obtain a Bell parameter S of 2.275 ± 0.057, which means that the Bell inequality is violated by more than four standard deviations. ... The average visibility through all phases α is V = 0.828 ± 0.018. By assuming the general white noise and hence the resulting Werner state form, we obtain the Bell violation of S = 2.342 ± 0.051 based on S-V relation."

    The headline 'Bell-inequality violation' is computed from the same coincidence counts that were used to define the probabilities; the Appendix explicitly converts measured visibility into S via an S-V relation. With the self-defined outcome mapping, S is an arithmetic transform of the raw interference contrast: S>2 iff V>1/√2. Thus the central claim is not an independent prediction from a first-principles Bell test but a renaming of the observed four-photon interference visibility as a Bell-parameter violation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is: measure four-photon coincidence rate N(α,β) ∝ 1+V cos(α+β); define the absent '-1' outcome as '+1' at the phase-shifted setting; construct joint probabilities from those shifted counts; compute E(α,β)=cos(α+β); evaluate CHSH S=2.275±0.057. Each step is internally consistent, but the crucial step is definitional. Because there is no physical '-1' output, the binary outcome space is manufactured from the phase dependence of the count rate, and the 'Bell violation' reduces to the statement that the measured visibility exceeds 1/√2. The authors acknowledge related limitations explicitly: 'In this work, we post-select four-photon coincidence counts to violate the inequality' and 'the locality loophole remains open (alongside sampling loophole)'. This is not a case of self-citation being load-bearing; the independent content lies in the observed multi-photon frustrated interference itself. However, the claimed Bell-inequality violation, as constructed, is equivalent to that visibility measurement, so a partial circularity score of 6 is appropriate. The result may still be a valuable demonstration of interference by path identity, but as a test of local realism it is not established beyond the constructed mapping.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main free parameters are the SPDC gain and the fitted visibility, which characterizes the interference quality. The central assumption is the outcome mapping that converts phase-shifted count rates into '-1' outcomes, plus the post-selection fair-sampling assumption. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • SPDC gain g = 0.096 ± 0.008
    Used in numerical simulations and in the vacuum-entanglement analysis; not used to compute the Bell parameter directly, but characterizes the source.
  • Interference visibility V = 0.754-0.828 (per setting)
    Extracted from cosine fits; the Bell violation depends on V exceeding 1/√2, so the fitted visibility is a key input even though S is computed from raw counts.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Second-order truncation of the SPDC state is valid for the four-photon coincidence analysis.
    The output state (Eq. 15) is truncated to g² terms; higher-order terms are argued to vanish in the limit of small g (g=0.096).
  • domain assumption The four photons on each path are indistinguishable in all degrees of freedom.
    Path identity is the central mechanism; the experimental alignment and filtering (3 nm bandpass, single-mode fibers) are claimed to ensure indistinguishability.
  • ad hoc to paper Count rates at phase-shifted settings correspond to the opposite measurement outcomes (Eqs. 9-12).
    This mapping constructs the joint probabilities that enter the CHSH inequality; it is an assumption not directly tested.
  • domain assumption Post-selected four-photon coincidences are a fair sample for computing joint probabilities.
    The sampling loophole is acknowledged; the validity of the Bell violation depends on this fair-sampling assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Violation of Bell Inequality with Unentangled Photons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CLT52OS5

@misc{pith2026250707756,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Violation of Bell Inequality with Unentangled Photons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CLT52OS5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07756}
}
read the original abstract

Violation of local realism via Bell inequality - a profound and counterintuitive manifestation of quantum theory that conflicts with the prediction of local realism - is viewed to be intimately linked with quantum entanglement. Experimental demonstrations of such a phenomenon using quantum entangled states are among the landmark experiments of modern physics and paved the way for quantum technology. Here we report the violation of the Bell inequality that cannot be described by quantum entanglement in the system but arises from quantum indistinguishability by path identity, shown by the multi-photon frustrated interference. By analyzing the measurement of four-photon frustrated interference within the standard Bell-test formalism, we find a violation of Bell inequality by more than four standard deviations. Our work establishes a connection between quantum correlation and quantum indistinguishability, providing insights into the fundamental origin of the counterintuitive characteristics observed in quantum physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07756 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Four-photon frustrated interference. (A) Every white square (I, II, III, IV) represents a two-photon source that can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Correlation results of four-photon-coincidence counts (C. C.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Verification of quantum correlation. (A) Correlation functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, Lectures on, Reading, Addison-Wesley (1965)

    work page 1965

  2. [2]

    RESUL TS Experimentally, we measure the quantum correlation between Alice and Bob by fixing α at α1 = 0 , α⊥ 1 = π, α2 = π/2, α⊥ 2 = 3π/2 and sweeping the phase β

    Note that the classical bound of the S-parameter is 2. RESUL TS Experimentally, we measure the quantum correlation between Alice and Bob by fixing α at α1 = 0 , α⊥ 1 = π, α2 = π/2, α⊥ 2 = 3π/2 and sweeping the phase β. The results of the four-fold-coincidence counts are shown in Fig. 2. The four-fold-coincidence counts for two orthog- onal bases with phas...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Physics concerns what we can say about nature

    as required for violat- ing the CHSH inequality [31]. We calculate the CHSH inequality from the coincidence counts (Fig. 2), which are listed in Table A1 in Appendix. We obtain a Bell parameter S of 2 .275 ± 0.057, which means that the Bell inequality is violated by more than four standard devi- ations. Note that in our previous work [28], the visibil- it...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    By assuming the general white noise and hence the resulting Werner state form, we obtain the Bell violation of S = 2.342 ± 0.051 based on S-V relation

    The average visibility through all phases α is V = 0.828 ± 0.018. By assuming the general white noise and hence the resulting Werner state form, we obtain the Bell violation of S = 2.342 ± 0.051 based on S-V relation. Our results show the conflict between quantum mechanics and local realism using quantum indistinguishability. 12 ∗ These two authors contri...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Mandel, Coherence and indistinguishability, Optics letters 16, 1882 (1991)

    L. Mandel, Coherence and indistinguishability, Optics letters 16, 1882 (1991)

    work page 1991

  6. [6]

    Mandel, Quantum effects in one-photon and two- photon interference, Rev

    L. Mandel, Quantum effects in one-photon and two- photon interference, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S274 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Zeilinger, Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics, Rev

    A. Zeilinger, Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S288 (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Zeilinger, G

    A. Zeilinger, G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, and M. As- pelmeyer, Happy centenary, photon, Nature 433, 230 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  2. [10]

    Bohr, Can quantum-mechanical description of physi- cal reality be considered complete?, Phys

    N. Bohr, Can quantum-mechanical description of physi- cal reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935)

    1935

  3. [11]

    Schr¨ odinger, Die gegenw¨ artige situation in der quan- tenmechanik, Naturwissenschaften 23, 807 (1935); 23, 823 (1935); 23, 844 (1935)

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Die gegenw¨ artige situation in der quan- tenmechanik, Naturwissenschaften 23, 807 (1935); 23, 823 (1935); 23, 844 (1935)

    1935

  4. [12]

    J. S. Bell, On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  5. [13]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    X. Y. Zou, L. J. Wang, and L. Mandel, Induced co- herence and indistinguishability in optical interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 318 (1991)

    1991

  7. [15]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Mul- tiparticle interferometry and the superposition principle, Physics Today 46, 22 (1993)

    1993

  8. [16]

    T. J. Herzog, J. G. Rarity, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Frustrated two-photon creation via inter- ference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 629 (1994)

    1994

  9. [17]

    G. B. Lemos, V. Borish, G. D. Cole, S. Ramelow, R. Lap- kiewicz, and A. Zeilinger, Quantum imaging with unde- tected photons, Nature 512, 409 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Y. Yang, H. Liang, X. Xu, L. Zhang, S. Zhu, and X.- s. Ma, Interaction-free, single-pixel quantum imaging with undetected photons, npj Quantum Information 9, 2 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    D. A. Kalashnikov, A. V. Paterova, S. P. Kulik, and L. A. Krivitsky, Infrared spectroscopy with visible light, Nat. Photonics 10, 98 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    A. V. Paterova, H. Yang, C. An, D. A. Kalashnikov, and L. A. Krivitsky, Tunable optical coherence tomography in the infrared range using visible photons, Quantum Sci- ence and Technology 3, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Krenn, A

    M. Krenn, A. Hochrainer, M. Lahiri, and A. Zeilinger, Entanglement by path identity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 080401 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    J. Su, L. Cui, J. Li, Y. Liu, X. Li, and Z. Ou, Versatile and precise quantum state engineering by using nonlinear interferometers, Optics express 27, 20479 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    G. B. Lemos, R. Lapkiewicz, A. Hochrainer, M. Lahiri, and A. Zeilinger, One-photon measurement of two- photon entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 090202 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    A. V. Paterova, S. M. Maniam, H. Yang, G. Grenci, and L. A. Krivitsky, Hyperspectral infrared microscopy with visible light, Sci. Adv. 6, eabd0460 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Kviatkovsky, H

    I. Kviatkovsky, H. M. Chrzanowski, E. G. Avery, H. Bar- tolomaeus, and S. Ramelow, Microscopy with unde- tected photons in the mid-infrared, Sci. Adv.6, eabd0264 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    T¨ opfer, M

    S. T¨ opfer, M. Gilaberte Basset, J. Fuenzalida, F. Stein- lechner, J. P. Torres, and M. Gr¨ afe, Quantum holography with undetected light, Sci. Adv. 8, eabl4301 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    K. J. Resch, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Non- linear optics with less than one photon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 123603 (2001)

    2001

  20. [28]

    Herzog, J

    T. Herzog, J. Rarity, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Herzog et al. reply, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3041 (1994)

    1994

  21. [29]

    X. Gu, M. Erhard, A. Zeilinger, and M. Krenn, Quantum experiments and graphs ii: Quantum interference, com- putation, and state generation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 4147 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    L.-T. Feng, M. Zhang, D. Liu, Y.-J. Cheng, G.-P. Guo, D.-X. Dai, G.-C. Guo, M. Krenn, and X.-F. Ren, On- chip quantum interference between the origins of a multi- photon state, Optica 10, 105 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    K. Qian, K. Wang, L. Chen, Z. Hou, M. Krenn, S. Zhu, and X.-s. Ma, Multiphoton non-local quantum interfer- ence controlled by an undetected photon, Nat. Commun. 14, 1480 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938 (1972)

    1972

  25. [33]

    Aspect, P

    A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Experimental tests of realistic local theories via bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460 (1981)

    1981

  26. [34]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theo- ries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  27. [35]

    Petersen, The philosophy of niels bohr, Bull

    A. Petersen, The philosophy of niels bohr, Bull. At. Sci. 19, 8 (1963)

    1963

  28. [36]

    Hochrainer, M

    A. Hochrainer, M. Lahiri, M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Quantum indistinguishability by path iden- tity and with undetected photons, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 025007 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    M. O. Scully and K. Dr¨ uhl, Quantum eraser: A pro- posed photon correlation experiment concerning observa- tion and ”delayed choice” in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. A 25, 2208 (1982)

    1982

  30. [38]

    M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, Two-particle interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2209 (1989)

    1989

  31. [39]

    Z. Y. Ou, L. J. Wang, X. Y. Zou, and L. Mandel, Evi- dence for phase memory in two-photon down conversion through entanglement with the vacuum, Phys. Rev. A 41, 566 (1990)

    1990

  32. [40]

    J. G. Rarity and P. R. Tapster, Experimental violation of bell’s inequality based on phase and momentum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2495 (1990)

    1990

  33. [41]

    H¨ ubel, D

    H. H¨ ubel, D. R. Hamel, A. Fedrizzi, S. Ramelow, K. J. Resch, and T. Jennewein, Direct generation of photon triplets using cascaded photon-pair sources, Nature 466, 601 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Aspect, J

    A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Experimental test of bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers, Phys. 13 Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982)

    1982

  35. [43]

    Weihs, T

    G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, C. Simon, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Violation of bell’s inequality under strict einstein locality conditions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5039 (1998)

    1998

  36. [44]

    M. A. Rowe, D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, C. A. Sackett, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Experi- mental violation of a bell’s inequality with efficient de- tection, Nature 409, 791 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    Scheidl, R

    T. Scheidl, R. Ursin, J. Kofler, S. Ramelow, X.-S. Ma, T. Herbst, L. Ratschbacher, A. Fedrizzi, N. K. Langford, T. Jennewein, et al., Violation of local realism with free- dom of choice, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 19708 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Giustina, A

    M. Giustina, A. Mech, S. Ramelow, B. Wittmann, J. Kofler, J. Beyer, A. Lita, B. Calkins, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, et al., Bell violation using entangled pho- tons without the fair-sampling assumption, Nature 497, 227 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    B. G. Christensen, K. T. McCusker, J. B. Altepeter, B. Calkins, T. Gerrits, A. E. Lita, A. Miller, L. K. Shalm, Y. Zhang, S. W. Nam, N. Brunner, C. C. W. Lim, N. Gisin, and P. G. Kwiat, Detection-loophole-free test of quantum nonlocality, and applications, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111...

    2013

  40. [48]

    Gallicchio, A

    J. Gallicchio, A. S. Friedman, and D. I. Kaiser, Test- ing bell’s inequality with cosmic photons: Closing the setting-independence loophole, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 110405 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Hensen, H

    B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dr´ eau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abell´ an,et al., Loophole-free bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres, Nature 526, 682 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Giustina, M

    M. Giustina, M. A. M. Versteegh, S. Wengerowsky, J. Handsteiner, A. Hochrainer, K. Phelan, F. Steinlech- ner, J. Kofler, J.-A. Larsson, C. Abell´ an, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, J. Beyer, T. Gerrits, A. E. Lita, L. K. Shalm, S. W. Nam, T. Scheidl, R. Ursin, B. Wittma...

    2015

  43. [51]

    L. K. Shalm, E. Meyer-Scott, B. G. Christensen, P. Bier- horst, M. A. Wayne, M. J. Stevens, T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, D. R. Hamel, M. S. Allman, K. J. Coakley, S. D. Dyer, C. Hodge, A. E. Lita, V. B. Verma, C. Lam- brocco, E. Tortorici, A. L. Migdall, Y. Zhang, D. R. Kumor, W. H....

    2015

  44. [52]

    Rosenfeld, D

    W. Rosenfeld, D. Burchardt, R. Garthoff, K. Redeker, N. Ortegel, M. Rau, and H. Weinfurter, Event-ready bell test using entangled atoms simultaneously closing detec- tion and locality loopholes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 010402 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    M.-H. Li, C. Wu, Y. Zhang, W.-Z. Liu, B. Bai, Y. Liu, W. Zhang, Q. Zhao, H. Li, Z. Wang, L. You, W. J. Munro, J. Yin, J. Zhang, C.-Z. Peng, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, J. Fan, and J.-W. Pan, Test of local realism into the past without detection and locality loopholes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 12...

    2018

  46. [54]

    Gr¨ oblacher, T

    S. Gr¨ oblacher, T. Paterek, R. Kaltenbaek, ˇC. Brukner, M. ˙Zukowski, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, An exper- imental test of non-local realism, Nature 446, 871 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.