Testing methodology for the Chinese quantum satellite link?
marshall.eubanks at gmail.com
Fri Jul 14 00:04:52 CST 2017
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody at 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
This is somewhat higher level
> 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.
More information about the NANOG