Cases
Checked against other people's data
Seven public datasets. Three close, one is retracted, two are judged inapplicable, one is a geometric calculation.
| Case | Input → observed | Inferred | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Squeezed-light link (Vahlbruch 2016) | source 23.35 → 15.3 dB | η = 0.975 | Closes; three further independent matches |
| LIGO O3 squeezing injection | 6.0 → 3.0 dB | L = 0.334 | Closes |
| Yb lattice-clock spin squeezing | 12.9 → 6.5 dB | — | Retracted: added noise is not multiplicative loss |
| 12 km entanglement distribution (2024) | 1.95 kHz, η_link 0.46 | T_coh 236 μs | Closes (rate type, time ledger) |
| SiN micro-ring + on-chip gain | not given → 4.6 dB | negative | Not applicable (pre-amplification) |
| Microwave cavity (Dassonneville 2021) | 6.7 → 8.2 dB | — | Loss law does not apply: correction is procedural |
| Free-space single hop (100 km) | geometry share 54.2% | computed | Geometry dominates at long range |
Derivations are in the files below: literature checks I / II, quantum network, microwave, free-space hop.
Two industry examples
Same formula, opposite conclusions.
Fibre (DAS)
Geometry share falls with distance
9.3% at 10 km, 2.7% at 50 km. At long range the fibre itself dominates.
Free space
Geometry share rises with distance
3.4% at 10 km, 54.2% at 100 km. At long range the receiver aperture dominates.