Testing methodology for the Chinese quantum satellite link?
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
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
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%20... 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
-Bill
participants (2)
-
Bill Woodcock -
Marshall Eubanks