AWhat changed
Shalm and colleagues reported a Bell-inequality violation using polarization-entangled photon pairs, rapid setting choices, spacelike separation and efficient superconducting detectors. For a five-pulse aggregation the source table reports a local-realism p-value of 5.9 × 10⁻⁹, or 2.3 × 10⁻⁷ under its stated excess-predictability model.
Scientific scope
Shalm and colleagues reported a Bell-inequality violation using polarization-entangled photon pairs, rapid setting choices, spacelike separation and efficient superconducting detectors. For a five-pulse aggregation the source table reports a local-realism p-value of 5.9 × 10⁻⁹, or 2.3 × 10⁻⁷ under its stated excess-predictability model. The test addresses locality and fair-sampling loopholes together under assumptions about timing, recorded outcomes and measurement-setting independence. No finite experiment removes every possible assumption. Five-pulse and other analyses reuse the same data rather than independent experiments; raw statistical replay and the separate supplementary material were not examined. The five-pulse p-value is printed as 5.8 × 10⁻⁹ in the text and figure but 5.9 × 10⁻⁹ in the abstract and table. The final published paper confirms the same 34-person printed byline as v1 and explicitly marks the second and third authors as equal contributors. Its abstract and table print 5.9 × 10⁻⁹ while its text and figure print 5.8 × 10⁻⁹; this source-internal difference remains uncorrected. The final reported run was selected as the most stable among six configurations. The 2015 journal figure 3 caption says pulses 1–11 are spacelike separated, while both author-preprint v1 and 2016 v2 figure 3 say pulse 1 is not and pulses 2–11 are. The reported five-pulse aggregate uses pulses 4–8, so this textual discrepancy does not concern inclusion of pulse 1 in that aggregate. The independent source of this discrepancy has not been checked.
Evidence
The linked original works support the scoped statement and contribution attribution. WRS has not independently replayed experiments or reconstructed a full mathematical proof. The test addresses locality and fair-sampling loopholes together under assumptions about timing, recorded outcomes and measurement-setting independence. No finite experiment removes every possible assumption. Five-pulse and other analyses reuse the same data rather than independent experiments; raw statistical replay and the separate supplementary material were not examined. The five-pulse p-value is printed as 5.8 × 10⁻⁹ in the text and figure but 5.9 × 10⁻⁹ in the abstract and table. The final published paper confirms the same 34-person printed byline as v1 and explicitly marks the second and third authors as equal contributors. Its abstract and table print 5.9 × 10⁻⁹ while its text and figure print 5.8 × 10⁻⁹; this source-internal difference remains uncorrected. The final reported run was selected as the most stable among six configurations. The 2015 journal figure 3 caption says pulses 1–11 are spacelike separated, while both author-preprint v1 and 2016 v2 figure 3 say pulse 1 is not and pulses 2–11 are. The reported five-pulse aggregate uses pulses 4–8, so this textual discrepancy does not concern inclusion of pulse 1 in that aggregate. The independent source of this discrepancy has not been checked.
Contributors
- The named authors in the research record · SCIENCE: These are the listed authors of the cited contribution sources. Paper authorship does not quantify individual effort. An incomplete list is explicitly marked; same names are not automatically merged.
- A strong loophole-free test of local realism
- Strong Loophole-Free Test of Local Realism
- A strong loophole-free test of local realism (author preprint v2)
Provisional WRS assessment, edition 2026-10-28.1. Independent expert calibration is pending. This grade does not certify correctness or assign ownership.
Full scientific record · Browse contribution grades · Request a correction