Experimental Tests of Bell’s Inequality
Marc Alomar Payeras
One of the philosophical precepts on which modern
thinking has developed is that of realism. Everyday ex-
perience seems to confirm that external reality exists
and has well defined properties, whether we observe it
or not. The advent of quantum mechanics challenged
this point of view, and provoked an intense debate dur-
ing the first half of the XXth century. Many scientists
and philosophers wanted to reconcile a realistic concep-
tual framework with the accurate predictions of quantum
mechanics. These efforts gave rise to local-realist hidden-
variables theories, on which quantum mechanics would
be derived as a statistical average, similarly to statistical
mechanics.
The debate started in 1935 with a famous article
by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), titled “Can
quantum-mechanical description of reality be considered
complete?” [9]. Based on the principles of locality
and realism, the authors presented a thought experiment
that challenged the completeness of quantum mechanics.
For a long time the debate was mainly philosophical.
However, the situation dramatically changed in 1964,
when Bell [2] showed that any local realistic theory pre-
dicts bounded correlations, and that quantum mechan-
ics violates them in some cases. Bell’s inequality moved
the philosophical debate into the realm of experimental
physics.
Many research groups started to work on the prob-
lem, to verify whether quantum mechanics was or not
a local realistic theory. In the following decades many
experiments confirmed the violation of Bell’s inequality.
However, all of them had to make some auxiliary assump-
tions to interpret the results (i.e. loopholes), leaving the
door opened to hidden-variables theories. The experi-
mental requirements to close the loopholes are extreme,
and they were not all closed until 2015, when three dif-
ferent groups reported loophole-free violation of Bell’s
inequality [13, 12, 21].
In this review we focus on the experimental tests of
Bell’s inequality. In section 1 we discuss the EPR para-
dox in the Bohm formulation, which is very similar to
the experiments performed to test Bell’s inequalities. In
section 2 we state Bell’s theorem and present the CHSH
formulation, used in experiments. Section 3 discusses
the major loopholes found in experimental tests. Finally,
section 4 reviews some of the experiments performed be-
tween 1964 and 2015.
1
1 The EPR Paradox
The thought experiment of EPR wants to refute that a
quantum mechanical description of a system is complete.
The argument makes three basic assumptions. First,
it accepts the predictions made by quantum mechanics.
Second, it defines an “element of physical reality” in the
following way: “If, without in any way disturbing a sys-
tem, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability
equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then
there exists an element of physical reality correspond-
ing to this physical quantity”. Based on this concept,
they consider that a physical theory is complete if “ev-
ery element of the physical reality has a counterpart in
the physical theory”. Third, it assumes that there is no
action at a distance.
The system considered by EPR is made of two parti-
cles with well-defined separation, x1 − x2 = a, and total
momentum zero. However, we present the argument us-
ing an entangled spin state, as introduced by Bohm [4].
The argument is simpler, and closely resembles the ex-
periments presented later. Let us consider two spin one-
√
half particles in a singlet state, |ψS i = (|↑↓i − |↓↑i) / 2.
We separate them far away, to avoid any interaction.
Then, we can measure the spin of particle 1 in any di-
rection, with a Stern-Gerlach experiment, for example.
As a consequence of the measurement process, we can
immediately deduce the value of the same spin compo-
nent of particle 2, without measuring it. In this case, the
spin of 2 will always be opposite to that of 1. We could
measure any spin component of 1, and we would deduce
the same result about 2. Therefore, it seems that the
spin components of 2 are always well defined, without
measuring them.
This would not be a problem in classical physics, where
all components are always well defined. However, this is
not the case in quantum physics. Non-commuting op-
erators, such as Sx and Sy , cannot be simultaneously
defined: if we know precisely Sx , the value of Sy is inde-
terminate. According to EPR, there are two alternatives
to solve this paradox: if Sx and Sy are both elements of
physical reality, in the sense of EPR, then quantum me-
chanics is incomplete, because it cannot predict them.
The other possibility is that quantities associated with
non-commuting observables, such as Sx and Sy , cannot
be simultaneously real. In this case, the reality of Sx,2
would depend on the measurement carried out on particle
1, breaking the locality principle. In the words of EPR,
2 Bell’s Inequalities 2

“no reasonable definition of reality could be expected to

permit this”.

2 Bell’s Inequalities
Now we derive Bell’s theorem, following his original for-
mulation based on Bohm’s thought experiment [2]. We
consider two spin one-half particles in the singlet state,
moving freely in opposite directions. Measurements can
be made on any spin components σ1 and σ2 . If a mea-
surement of σ1 ·~a, where ~a is an arbitrary unit vector,
yields A = +1 (in units of ~/2), then σ2 ·~a yields B = −1.
According to the EPR argument, any measurements per-
Fig. 1: A violation of the CHSH inequality is found when
formed on particle 1 cannot influence those made on 2 to
φ = π/4.
comply with locality. Since we can deduce any spin com-
ponent of particle 2 by measuring the same component
of 1, the results must be predetermined, as implied by
realism. Quantum mechanics, which describes the sys-   ˆ  
tem with a wavefunction ψ, cannot predict these results. P (~a, ~b) − P (~a, ~c) ≤ dλ ρ(λ) 1 − A(~b, λ)A(~c, λ)
 
Therefore, we assume that there is a more complete spec-
(5)
ification of the state, given by a set of parameters λ.
The second term on the right-hand side is P (~b, ~c).
According to this hidden-value theory, the measure-
Therefore, we obtain
ment of particle 1 is determined by the direction of de-
tector 1, ~a, and the set of parameters λ, and analogously  
1 + P (~b, ~c) ≥ P (~a, ~b) − P (~a, ~c) (6)
 
for particle 2, i.e. A(~a, λ), B(~b, λ). The vital assumption
here is that the result A for particle 1 does not depend Inequality (6) is the first of the so-called “Bell inequal-
on the setting ~b, the direction of detector 2. Any theory ities”. One case in which the quantum-mechanical pre-
that denies the existence of action-at-a-distance must be diction (2) contradicts (6) is when (a, cc) = 2π/3 and
local in this sense. The expectation value of measuring (a,
cb) = (b, cc) = π/3, for which the quantum-mechanical
σ1 ·~a on particle 1 and σ2 ·~b on particle 2 is
expectation value is P (~a, ~b)ψ = P (~b, ~c)ψ = −1/2, and
ˆ
P (~a, ~c)ψ = 1/2. It follows that 1 + P (~b, ~c)ψ = 1/2 and
P (~a, ~b) = dλ ρ(λ)A(~a, λ)B(~b, λ) (1)
|P (~a, ~b)ψ − P (~a, ~c)ψ | = 1, in conflict with the inequality
hold by hidden-value theories.
where ρ(λ) is the probability density function of λ. This
The formulation of Bell’s theorem is unrealizable in
result should equal the quantum mechanical expectation
real experiments. One of the key assumptions to derive
value,
(6) is that there is a particular configuration of the polar-
izers with perfect correlation, A(~a, λ) = −B(~a, λ). How-
P (~a, ~b)ψ = hψS | σ1 ·~a σ2 ·~b |ψS i = −~a·~b (2) ever, real polarizers attenuate and leak some of the sig-
However, it will be shown that this is not the case. nal on the orthogonal channel. An alternative proof that
When ~a = ~b, the quantum mechanical predictions imply does not require perfect correlation, A(~a, λ) = −B(~a, λ),
A(~a, λ) = −B(~a, λ). Presuming this, (1) can be written was made by Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt (CHSH)
as [7], who obtained the following inequality,
ˆ
P (~a, ~b) = − dλ ρ(λ)A(~a, λ)A(~b, λ)
 
(3) S = P (~a, ~b) − P (a~0 , ~b) + P (~a, b~0 ) + P (a~0 , b~0 ) ≤ 2
 
(7)

Now, we subtract P (~a, ~c), where ~c is another unit vec- Parameters a, a0 represent different settings on detec-
tor, tor 1, and b, b0 for detector 2. A violation is found for
the configuration shown on figure 1, with φ = π/4. How-
ever, it is not obvious how to apply this expression in a
P (~a, ~b) − P (~a, ~c) real experiment. To obtain the expected values we need
ˆ   the total number of events, but detectors have efficien-
= dλ ρ(λ)A(~a, λ)A(~b, λ) A(~b, λ)A(~c, λ) − 1 (4) cies less than 100 %. Furthermore, analyzers are usually
single-channeled, i.e. they block the photon if it is in the
We take the absolute value, recalling that A(~a, λ) = orthogonal state. CHSH propose to assign a value of -1
±1, to those cases in which the photon is blocked. However,
4 Bell Inequality Tests
Fig. 2: Experimental set-up assumed by CH, with a sin-
gle detector on each arm.
it is not clear how to discern them from a photon that
actually crossed the analyzer but was not detected by
the detector.
In 1974, Clauser and Horne [6] proposed an alternative
inequality. Assuming that the number of emissions, N , is
unobservable, they derive an inequality using only ratios
of the observed particle detection probabilities.
R(a, b) − R(a, b0 ) + R(a0 , b) + R(a0 , b0 )
≤1 (8)
r1 (a0 ) + r2 (b)
where R(a, b) is the rate of coincidences and ri (a) is the
rate of detections on the apparatus i. CH assume the
experimental set-up shown on figure 2, with a single-
channel analyzer.
3 Loopholes in Bell Inequality Tests
3.1 Detection Loophole
The first experimental tests of Bell’s inequality were
made using pairs of photons entangled in polarization.
However, until very recently all of them were plagued
with the detection loophole. The low efficiency of pho-
ton detectors (usually 10 - 20%) implied that many co-
incidence events were left undetected, and were not con-
sidered in the inequality. This would make it possible
for a local model to reproduce the experimental results.
For example, it is possible to imagine that non-detection
events depend on the choice of measurement parameters
(e.g. in [6], the authors devise a local theory that repro-
duces the experiments of Freedman and Clauser [10]).
Results had to be interpreted under the fair-sampling
assumption, which takes for granted that the sample of
detected photons is representative of the data that would
be recorded if the detectors had unity efficiency.
It is still possible to close the detection loophole with-
out unity efficiency. Mermin showed in the 80s that an
efficiency of the 82.8% is needed to violate Bell’s in-
equality [17], an unattainable value at that time. The 4 Bell Inequality Tests
efficiency threshold was further reduced by Eberhard in
1993 [8], who showed that it could be as low as 66.7% if Over the last forty years, the experiments to test Bell’s
the signal-to-noise ratio is very high. This optimization is inequality have become more and more complex (first
obtained for photon-pairs in a non-maximally entangled articles had just two or three authors; those of recent
3
√
state, |ψi = (1/ 1 + r2 )(|HV i + r |V Hi). For example,
an efficiency of the 70% is enough is the background noise
is 0.02%. In that case, r = 0.136.
3.2 Locality Loophole
In the derivation of Bell’s inequality, one of the basic
premises was that of locality in the measurement process,
i.e. the measurement parameters of detector B should
have no influence on detector A. However, if measure-
ment settings are set long before the experiment, it would
be possible that some signal carries information about
the measurement setup. This signal would influence the
remote setting, i.e. A(λ, ~a, ~b), instead of A(λ, ~a). In
that case, it would be possible for a hidden-value theory
to violate Bell’s inequality.
J. Bell was well aware of this loophole, and proposed to
change the measurement parameters during the flight of
particles. As compared to the detection loophole, which
was justified using the fair-sampling assumption, Bell be-
lieved that the locality loophole was more critical in an
EPR experiment. At that time no experiment had been
performed demonstrating the validity of quantum me-
chanics in space-like separated events. When discussing
the fair-sampling assumption, his position was that “... it
is hard for me to believe that quantum mechanics works
so nicely for inefficient practical set-ups and is yet going
to fail badly when sufficient refinements are made. Of
more importance, in my opinion, is the complete absence
of the vital time factor in existing experiments. The an-
alyzers are not rotated during the flight of the particles.”
In addition, it should be impossible to predict the mea-
surement parameters in advance. Both observers must
be able to make measurement choices independent of the
test particles and of the other observer. This is known as
the “freedom-of-choice” loophole: if a measurement set-
ting could be predicted in advance, then a local hidden-
value theory could predict the outcome and violate Bell’s
inequality. The choice should be random, and occur be-
fore a signal traveling from the source at the speed-of-
light arrives at the observer.
When discussing the locality condition in experiments,
the measurement process is usually illustrated on a space-
time diagram (see fig. 3). The measurement process
consists of three events: the choice of measurement pa-
rameters, Ci , the detection of a photon, Mi , and the
registration of results, Ri . To guarantee that the mea-
surement process at A has no influence on B, the event
Rb should be outside the forward light cone of Ca . This
is easily visualized on a space-time diagram.
4 Bell Inequality Tests
Fig. 3: Space-time diagrams are a practical tool to visual-
ize the compliance of the locality condition. Mea-
surement events should be space-like separated.
After [20].
years, more than thirty). In fact, it is very interest-
ing to see how the experiments have become more and
more refined, as they want to rule out highly improbable
hidden-value theories. One of the reasons, apart from the
fundamental aspect, is that these tests can be used to cer-
tify quantum communications, and finds practical appli-
cations in device-independent quantum-key-distribution
[18], for example.
The experimental test of Bell’s inequality was made
possible by the proposal of CHSH [7], who adapted Bell’s
result into a realizable experiment. In 1972, Freedman
and Clauser provided the first experimental evidence
against hidden-variable theories. The experiment, how-
ever, suffered from all the loopholes described before. It
was not until 1982 when Aspect et al. [1] closed the lo-
cality loophole. The freedom of choice and locality loop-
holes were jointly closed in 1998 by Weihs et al. [22]. The
efficiency loophole was first closed in 2001 by Rowe [19],
using ions instead of photons. In 2013 it was closed for
photons, first by Giustina [11] and short after by Chris-
tensen [5]. Finally, in 2015 three different groups closed
the locality, freedom-of-choice, and detection loopholes
simultaneously. The groups from Vienna [12] and from
NIST [21] used entangled photons, whereas the group
from Delft [13] used a solid-state system.
4.1 Experiments with Photons
4.1.1 Generation of Entangled Photons
4.1.2 First Generation of Experiments
The first experimental tests of Bell’s inequality used
polarization-entangled pairs of photons. These photons The first experiment that reported a violation of Bell’s in-
were created in a particular atomic cascade transition of equality was made in 1972 by J. Clauser and his PhD stu-
calcium, and was reported for the first time in 1967 [14]. dent S. Freedman [10]. Already in 1969, J. Clauser et al.
4
Fig. 4: Generation of polarization-entangled photons by
parametric down-conversion. After [15].
This transition involved an intermediate energy level be-
tween two states, 61 S0 → 41 P1 → 41 S0 , producing two
photons in the visible range of wavelength λ1 = 5513 Å
and λ2 = 4227 Å. Since the initial and final states have
zero angular momentum and the same parity, both pho-
tons are emitted in opposite directions, with correlated
polarization states. Calcium atoms are emitted from an
oven, and irradiated with intense UV light to excite the
transition 41 S0 → 61 P1 . Visible light was particularly
convenient to analyze with the photomultipliers and lin-
ear polarizers of the epoch, and for this reason it was the
main choice in the first generation of Bell inequality’s
experiments.
However, the brightness of atomic cascade sources is
low, and the entanglement state is degraded if pho-
tons are not emitted back to back. A high-intensity
source of polarization was demonstrated in 1995 [15],
based on type-II parametric down-conversion. In a down-
conversion process, a single photon from a pump laser
impinges on a nonlinear crystal and is converted into a
pair of photons. Conservation of energy and momentum
implies phase-matching conditions,
ω0 = ωe + ωo
k0 = ke + ko (9)
where (ω0 , k0 ) are the frequency and wavector of the
pump photon, and (ωe/o , ke/o ) those of the pair of
emerging photons. The down-conversion process is called
degenerate if both photons have the same frequency, i.e.
ωe = ωo = ω0 /2. When the photons have different po-
larization states, they propagate with different directions
due to birefringence. To comply with the phase-matching
conditions, photons with opposite states of polarization
emerge in two different cones (see fig. 4), which intersect
at two points. At those intersection points, photons with
both polarization states can emerge, creating an entan-
gled state.
4 Bell Inequality Tests
Fig. 5: Experimental setup of Freedman (top) and As-
pect (bottom). After [10, 1].
discussed the experimental requirements to perform such
an experiment [7], and analyzed previous experiments
using entangled photon pairs. One of them, using en-
tangled gamma rays from positronium annihilation, was
not considered valid due to the difficulty of performing
polarization measurements on high energy photons. The
experiment of Kocher and Commins [14], which used vis-
ible photons from a calcium source, was more promising,
but did not measure at enough polarization angles. They
also pointed out that the efficiency of the polarizers was
too low for a conclusive result.
The experiment used the atomic cascade conceived by
Kocher, and performed polarization measurements us-
ing a high quality single-channel analyzer, with efficiency
5
close the locality loophole was made by Aspect in 1982
[1]. The experimental setup was very similar to the one
of Freedman: calcium sources to generate entangled pho-
tons, and coincidence circuits to obtain the rate of events
(see fig. 5 (bottom)). However, the angle of the polar-
ization measurement changed during the time of flight to
achieve space-like separated measurements. The separa-
tion between both polarizers was of 40 ns (i.e. L = 6 m),
while switching between polarization channels occurred
every 10 ns. Coincidence events were obtained using a
time window of 18 ns. Therefore, the locality condition
was a consequence of Einstein’s causality, preventing any
faster-than-light influence.
It took to Aspect about 6 years to carry out this ex-
periment. The main difficulty was to achieve such a fast
switching between polarizers. This was achieved using
an acousto-optic switch: light was diffracted by an ul-
trasonic standing wave in water. However, they did not
close the freedom-of-choice loophole. Measurement set-
tings were changed in a predictable sequence, not ran-
domly.
4.1.3 Second Generation
The freedom-of-choice loophole was closed in 1998 by
Weihs et al. [22]. This experiment used a high-intensity
source of polarization-entangled photon pairs, produced
by degenerate type-II parametric down-conversion [15].
Although it has to make the “fair-sampling” assumption,
it goes one step further from the Aspect experiment by
making a truly random choice of the measurement set-
tings. Weihs emphasizes that a pseudo-random-number
generator cannot be used, since its state is predetermined
by an algorithm. Instead, a physical random number
generator was used, based on a light-emitting-diode mon-
itored by photomultipliers. Another difference from pre-
vious experimental setups is that both measuring sta-
tions are completely independent, to avoid any common
context that could influence results. Instead of using a
coincidence circuit, events are recorded independently on
each side, and compared only once the experiment has
 = 0.97 on the parallel axis, ⊥ = 0.037 on the orthog-
onal. The experimental setup is illustrated in figure 5
(top). The photomultiplier detectors were cooled to re-
duce dark rates, but the efficiency of the detectors was
pretty low, η = 1.5·10−3 . Coincidence circuits were used
to obtain the coincidence rates. Due to the low intensity
of the entangled photon source, the coincidence rate was
very low, on the order of 0.1 counts per second. It was
necessary to make very long experimental runs to obtain
good statistics (they report 200 hours). Results show a
violation of Bell’s inequality, and good agreement with
the predictions of quantum mechanics.
The experiment of Freedman, however, did not make
any attempt to close any loopholes. The locality loop-
hole was evidently open due to the table-top setup, as
well as the efficiency loophole. The first solid attempt to
finished. An atomic clock is used at each measurement
station to provide an accurate time bases, and are syn-
chronized only before the experiment.
To ensure the locality condition, observers are sepa-
rated 400 m, which requires that the measurement pro-
cess takes less than 1.3 µs. The whole measurement
process involves the selection of a random analyzer di-
rection, the setting of the analyzer, the detection of a
photon, and the recording of results. In this experiment,
the measurement process take much less than 1.3 µs,
thanks to the use of high-speed random number genera-
tors and electro-optical modulators to change the polar-
ization accordingly. Two different computers are used at
each measurement station, and a third one is used after
the experiment to analyze data. The experiment shows
a violation of Bell’s inequality and good agreement with
4 Bell Inequality Tests 6

Fig. 6: Measurement setup in the experiment of Weihs in

1998. After [22].

quantum-mechanical predictions. However, the authors Fig. 7: Space-time diagram of the experiment performed
recognize that it is still necessary to close the efficiency by the Zeilinger group in 2015. After [12].
loophole to have a conclusive result. In this experiment,
the efficiency of the detectors is 5%, far below the re-
quirements to close the loophole. NIST [21] and the other from Vienna [12]. The exper-
iments are essentially an extension of those of 2013 to
close the locality loophole. In the experiment of Vienna,
4.1.4 Third Generation the observation stations were separated about 60 me-
The detection loophole was closed for photons in 2013, ters, while those of NIST by 200 m. Fig. 7 shows the
in two independent experiments that still left the local- space-time diagram of the Vienna experiment. The blue
ity loophole open [5, 11]. This achievement was made cone illustrates the time at which a luminal signal could
possible by the use of superconducting transition-edge arrive at the measurement stations. The choice of mea-
sensors (TES), which offer very high efficiency (in the surement setting (green line), performed by a physical
order of 90%) and extremely low levels of dark counts. random number generator, must be completed before the
These experiments used CH inequality (eq. (8)), which blue line to close the freedom-of-choice loophole. The en-
does not need the fair-sampling assumption. Instead of tangled photons arrive somewhat later, since they propa-
maximally entangled states, they used Eberhard states to gate through optical fibers at v < c. To close the locality
reduce the efficiency required, as explained in section 3.1. loophole, the measurement of A must be completed be-
The choice of the parameter r is a compromise between fore a luminal signal from B is sent at the setting choice
the level of dark counts and the efficiency threshold. In (red line). This ensures, by Einstein’s causality, that the
both experiments, the efficiency is on the order of 75%, measurement process at A is independent of B.
once all losses are taken into account.
The experimental setup is almost identical to the ex- 4.2 Experiments with Solid-State Qubits
periment discussed in section 4.1.3, the most significant
difference being the detection mechanism. Christensen A research group from Delft closed the three major loop-
[5] criticizes that the experiment of Giustina suffers from holes a few months before the experiments with pho-
the coincidence-time loophole. This loophole refers to tons reported before, by using distant electron spin en-
the definition of coincident events between A and B. tanglement of solid-state qubits [13]. The experimental
These have usually been defined with respect to detection setup is quite different from the experiments reported be-
events, using a small coincidence window. To close this fore. The detection loophole is closed by using an event-
loophole, it is necessary to define the coincidence events ready experiment. Entanglement of electrons separated
with respect to a system clock, instead of a detection by more than one kilometer is achieved by entanglement
event. Since the jitter of TES detectors (500 ns) is much swapping via an intermediate location.
longer than the time between single photon emissions (8 Entanglement between distant solid-state qubits was
ns), Christensen pulses the laser, creating event intervals demonstrated by this group in 2013 [3]. The qubit con-
much longer than the detector jitter. The experiment of sists of a nitrogen-vacancy (NV) defect centre in dia-
Giustina solved this problem in 2014 [16]. mond, which combines a long-lived electronic spin (S =
The detection, freedom-of-choice, and locality loop- 1) with a robust optical interface. Measurements report
holes were closed with photons for the first time in 2015. a spin coherence time exceeding 10 ms, which is one of
Two groups reported simultaneously this result, one from the longest spin coherence times achieved in solids.
4 Bell Inequality Tests
Fig. 8: Entanglement of distant electron spins is created
by entanglement swapping.
The protocol to entangle distant NV spins is the fol-
lowing. First, each of the distant NV√centers is prepared
in a superposition state (|↑i + |↓i)/ 2, where |↑i corre-
sponds to ms = 0 and |↓i to ms = −1. Next, a laser
pulse excites the transition |↑i → |ei, where |ei has the
same spin projection as |↑i. This excited state can only
relax to |↑i, and not to |0i. By spontaneous emission,
the photon number is entangled
√ with the spin state, ob-
taining (|↑ 1i + |↓ 0i)/ 2. The combined state of both
NV centers is the product state
1 efficiencies required for a loophole-free Einstein-
|ABi = (|↑ 1iA + |↓ 0iA ) ⊗ (|↑ 1iB + |↓ 0iB ) (10)
2
The two photons are conducted to a 50:50 beam-
splitter, which erases the which-path information. [9] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Can
Emerging photons are monitored by two detectors (see
fig. 8). If only one of the detectors receives √ a photon,
then the photon state is (|1A 0B i+eiφ |0A 1B i)/ 2, where
the phase φ depends on the optical path. As a conse- [10] Stuart J. Freedman and John F. Clauser. Exper-
quence, the combined state is collapsed into
iφ

√
|↑A ↓B i + e |↓A ↑B i / 2 (11)
Therefore, this protocol has entangled both NV cen-
ters. In the Bell inequality test, photons are sent to a
location C, which records the arrival of entangled pho-
tons and combines them at a beam-splitter. When pho-
ton measurements imply that a state of the form (11) is
created, an event-ready signal is recorded, implying that
both NV centers have successfully been entangled. After
that, both NV centers are read-out independently.
References
[1] Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard, and Gérard Roger.
Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using
Time-Varying Analyzers. Physical Review Letters,
49(25):1804 – 1807, 1982.
[2] J. S. Bell. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox,
1964.
7
[3] H Bernien, B Hensen, W Pfaff, G Koolstra, M S
Blok, L Robledo, T H Taminiau, M Markham, D J
Twitchen, L Childress, and R Hanson. Heralded
entanglement between solid-state qubits separated
by 3 meters. Nature, 497(0):86–90, 2013.
[4] David Bohm and Y. Aharonov. Discussion of Exper-
imental Proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Rosen,
and Podolsky. Physical Review, 108(4):1070–1076,
1957.
[5] 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 Applica-
tions. Physical Review Letters, 111:130406, 2013.
[6] John F. Clauser and Michael A Horne. Experimen-
tal consequences of objective local theories. Physical
Review D, 10(2):526, 1974.
[7] John F. Clauser, Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony,
and Richard A. Holt. Proposed Experiment to Test
Local Hidden-Variable Theories, 1969.
[8] Philippe H Eberhard. Background level and counter
Podolsky-Rosen experiment. Physical Review A,
47(2):747–750, 1993.
Quantum-Mechanical Description of Reality Be
Considered Complete?, 1935.
imental Test of Local Hidden-Variables Theories,
1972.
[11] Authors Marissa Giustina, Alexandra Mech, Sven
Ramelow, Bernhard Wittmann, Johannes Kofler,
Jörn Beyer, Adriana Lita, Brice Calkins, Thomas
Gerrits, Sae Woo Nam, Rupert Ursin, and Anton
Zeilinger. Bell violation with entangled photons
, free of the fair - sampling assumption. Nature,
497:227–230, 2013.
[12] Marissa Giustina, Marijn A.M. Versteegh, S??ren
Wengerowsky, Johannes Handsteiner, Armin
Hochrainer, Kevin Phelan, Fabian Steinlechner, Jo-
hannes Kofler, Jan ??ke Larsson, Carlos Abell??n,
Waldimar Amaya, Valerio Pruneri, Morgan W.
Mitchell, J??rn Beyer, Thomas Gerrits, Adriana E.
Lita, Lynden K. Shalm, Sae Woo Nam, Thomas
Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Bernhard Wittmann, and
Anton Zeilinger. Significant-Loophole-Free Test of
Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Photons. Physical
Review Letters, 115:250401, 2015.
4 Bell Inequality Tests 8

[13] B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dréau, A. Reiserer, [22] Gregor Weihs, Thomas Jennewein, Christoph Si-
N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Ver- mon, Harald Weinfurter, and Anton Zeilinger.
meulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abellán, W. Amaya, Violation of Bell’s Inequality under Strict Ein-
V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. stein Locality Conditions. Physical Review Letters,
Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, 81(23):5039–5043, 1998.
and R. Hanson. Loophole-free Bell inequality viola-
tion using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres.
Nature, 526:682–686, 2015.

[14] Carl A. Kocher and Eugene D. Commins. Polar-

ization correlation of photons emitted in an atomic
cascade. Physical Review Letters, 18(15):575–577,
1967.

[15] Paul G. Kwiat, Klaus Mattle, Harald Weinfurter,

Anton Zeilinger, Alexander V. Sergienko, and Yan-
hua Shih. New high-intensity source of polarization-
entangled photon pairs. Physical Review Letters,
75(24):4337–4341, 1995.

[16] Jan-Åke Larsson, Marissa Giustina, Johannes

Kofler, Bernhard Wittmann, Rupert Ursin, and
Sven Ramelow. Bell violation with entangled pho-
tons, free of the coincidence-time loophole. Physical
Review A, 90:032107, 2014.

[17] N. D. Mermin. Techniques and Ideas in Quantum

Measurement Theory. pages 422– 428. New york a
edition, 1986.

[18] Stefano Pironio. Device-independent quantum key

distribution secure against collective attacks. New
Journal of Physics, 11:045021, 2009.

[19] M A Rowe, D Kielpinski, V Meyer, C A Sackett,

W M Itano, and D J Wineland. Experimental vio-
lation of a Bell’s inequality with efficient detection.
Nature, 409:791–794, 2001.

[20] Peter Shadbolt, Jonathan C F Mathews, Anthony

Laing, and Jeremy L O Brien. Testing foundations of
quantum mechanics with photons. Nature Physics,
10:278, 2014.

[21] Lynden K. Shalm, Evan Meyer-Scott, Bradley G.

Christensen, Peter Bierhorst, Michael A. Wayne,
Martin J. Stevens, Thomas Gerrits, Scott Glancy,
Deny R. Hamel, Michael S. Allman, Kevin J.
Coakley, Shellee D. Dyer, Carson Hodge, Adri-
ana E. Lita, Varun B. Verma, Camilla Lam-
brocco, Edward Tortorici, Alan L. Migdall, Yan-
bao Zhang, Daniel R. Kumor, William H. Farr,
Francesco Marsili, Matthew D. Shaw, Jeffrey A.
Stern, Carlos Abellán, Waldimar Amaya, Valerio
Pruneri, Thomas Jennewein, Morgan W. Mitchell,
Paul G. Kwiat, Joshua C. Bienfang, Richard P.
Mirin, Emanuel Knill, and Sae Woo Nam. Strong
Loophole-Free Test of Local Realism. Physical Re-
view Letters, 115:250402, 2015.