Papers › Bell violation with entangled photons, free of the coincidence-time loophole
Bell violation with entangled photons, free of the coincidence-time loophole
Jan-Åke Larsson, Marissa Giustina, Johannes Kofler, Bernhard Wittmann, Rupert Ursin, Sven Ramelow
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
In a local realist world view, physical properties are defined prior to and independent of measurement, and no physical influence can propagate faster than the speed of light. Proper experimental violation of a Bell inequality would show that the world cannot be described within local realism. Such experiments usually require additional assumptions that make them vulnerable to a number of "loopholes." A recent experiment [Giustina et al, Nature, 2013] violated a Bell inequality without being vulnerable to the detection (or fair-sampling) loophole, therefore not needing the fair-sampling assumption. Here we analyze the more subtle coincidence-time loophole, and propose and prove the validity of two different methods of data analysis that avoid it. Both methods are general and can be used both for pulsed and continuous-wave experiments. We apply them to demonstrate that the experiment mentioned above violates local realism without being vulnerable to the coincidence-time loophole, therefore not needing the corresponding fair-coincidence assumption.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections