Does anyone who understands quantum networking better than I do have an opinion on the testing methodology that the Chinese team used to confirm entanglement? I guess, more specifically, my question is: when they say that they got 911 positive results out of “millions” of attempts, does this significantly exceed any expected false-positive rate for the confirmation methodology? If so, by what margin? Obviously, if you were just flipping coins, and measured the results once, you’d get 50% positive correlation, twice and you’d get 25% correlation, ten times and you’d get 0.1% correlation, and you’d be at 911 out of a million. So, how much better than that are we talking about?
-Bill
Does anyone who understands quantum networking better than I do have an
opinion on the testing methodology that the Chinese team used to confirm
entanglement?
Their paper
https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01339
This is somewhat higher level
http://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Entanglement-based%20quantum%20communication%20over%20144km.pdf
More math
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.1319.pdf
I guess, more specifically, my question is: when they say that they got
911 positive results out of “millions” of attempts, does this significantly
exceed any expected false-positive rate for the confirmation methodology?
If so, by what margin? Obviously, if you were just flipping coins, and
measured the results once, you’d get 50% positive correlation, twice and
you’d get 25% correlation, ten times and you’d get 0.1% correlation, and
you’d be at 911 out of a million. So, how much better than that are we
talking about?
Look at Figure 2b in the Ursin paper. You are always doing this against
some background, looking for a statistically significant peak.
Regards
Marshall