[195288] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Testing methodology for the Chinese quantum satellite link?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Thu Jul 13 20:04:55 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <43AF6ED7-6EA3-4ABF-9330-B5C71528DDFE@pch.net>
From: Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 20:04:52 -0400
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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%2=
0communication%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 =E2=80=9Cmillions=E2=80=9D 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=E2=80=99d get 50% positive correlation, tw=
ice and
> you=E2=80=99d get 25% correlation, ten times and you=E2=80=99d get 0.1% c=
orrelation, and
> you=E2=80=99d 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
