Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1002.0715

Locality of quantum mechanics and the interpretation of the EPR criterion of reality

Nisticò, Giuseppe, Angela Sestito

Published Feb 3, 2010• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We prove that by adopting a strict interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen criterion of reality, the proofs of the known non-locality theorems fail in showing that quantum mechanics violates the principle of locality and reality.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1002.0715

Related papers

Elements of reality in quantum mechanics

Geoff Beck

The notion of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) "element of reality" is much discussed in the literature on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Recently, it has become particularly relevant due to a proposed criterion of the physical reality of a given quantum mechanical observable [A. L. O. Bilobran and R. M. Angelo, Europhys. Lett. 112, 40005 (2015)]. We examine this proposal and its consequently related measure of non-locality [V. S. Gomez and R. M. Angelo, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012123, (2018)] and argue that the criterion is ill-described as quantifying physical reality without introducing serious inconsistency with the basic notions of realism that under-gird enquiry. We agree that this reality criterion demonstrates, along with the famous GHZ results, that general quantum observable values make for poor elements of reality. However, we also argue that this does not mean no such elements of reality are to be found in quantum theory. By arguing for, and adopting, probability distributions as these elements of reality instead, we demonstrate that the criterion of physical reality is actually one of observable predictability. We then examine the relationship of realism-based non-locality to the Bell form and find that, despite the flawed premise, this measure does indeed codify non-locality that is not captured by Bell inequalities.

arXiv:1807.06374•Jul 17, 2018•2 citations

Quantum violations of joint reality

R. A. Caetano, R. M. Angelo

Based on (i) the physical principle of local causality and (ii) a certain notion of elements of reality, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen put forward an argument showing that physical instances may exist in which two noncommuting observables can be joint elements of the physical reality. Here, we introduce a new criterion of joint reality. We demonstrate that according to this criterion, quantum mechanics generally prevents noncommuting observables from having joint elements of reality. In addition, we introduce a measure to quantify the extent to which the criterion is violated and explore the implications of such a measure in connection with incompatibility and correlations. Our findings suggest new manners of interpreting quantum phenomena.

arXiv:2405.17300•Physical Review A•Sep 17, 2024•4 citations

Locality and simultaneous elements of reality

Giuseppe Nisticò, Angela Sestito

We show that the extension of quantum correlations stemming from a “strict" interpreta- tion of the criterion of reality raises the failure of Hardy’s non-locality theorem. Then, by suggesting an ideal experiment, we prove that such an extension, though strictly smaller than the one derived by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen and usually adopted, allows for the assignment of simultaneous objective values of two non-commuting observables.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2012•0 citations

Neglecting non-locality: the response to EPR

Kristian Camilleri

Abstract The 1935 Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paper, “Can Quantum–Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, stands as a landmark in the foundational debates over quantum mechanics. While the paper has since become one of Einstein’s most cited works, it initially received little attention, and the feature of non-locality, which was central to the argument in the paper, was largely neglected for decades. In this paper, I offer two reasons for this early neglect of non-locality in the immediate aftermath of EPR. First, early responses to the EPR paper defended the completeness of quantum mechanics by reformulating the thought experiment the authors had presented, thereby obscuring the feature of quantum mechanics the authors had wished to highlight. Bohr’s influential reply, for instance, substituted the specific thought experiment presented by EPR with the two-slit experiment, thus suppressing the entanglement between spatially separated systems. A second reason for the marginalization of non-locality was the tendency to see Einstein’s critique of quantum mechanics as proceeding from a commitment to determinism, though this in fact played no role in the EPR paper or in his later writings and correspondence. This paper argues that the failure to recognize non-locality was partly a result of the rhetorical manoeuvring by EPR’s critics, but also to a broader philosophical climate dominated by concerns over determinism, which effectively eclipsed all other conceptual issues, Only with Bell’s theorem in the 1960s did non-locality return as a serious focus of foundational inquiry.

The European Physical Journal H•Aug 12, 2026•0 citations

Analysis of non locality proofs in Quantum Mechanics

Giuseppe Nisticò

Two kinds of non-locality theorems in Quantum Mechanics are taken into account: the theorems based on the criterion of reality and the quite different theorem proposed by Stapp. In the present work the analyses of the theorem due to Greenberger, Horne, Shimony and Zeilinger, based on the criterion of reality, and of Stapp’s argument are shown. The results of these analyses show that the alleged violations of locality cannot be considered definitive.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Feb 8, 2012•0 citations

EPR Paradox and Magician's Props

Liangsuo Shu, Shiping Jin, Xiaokang Liu +5 more

Local realism has been knocked down by the experiments with entangled pairs of particles based on Bell's theorem(J. S. Bell, Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) 1, 195 (1964)). However, there has been continuing debate on whether locality or realism is the problem. In this work, we analyzed the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment of Bohm's version using information theory and thermodynamics. The inference of non-locality from EPR experiments will be against the principle of non-realism of quantum mechanics. Therefore, the experiments about quantum entanglement cannot provide any proof to accuse locality.

arXiv:1407.6087•Jul 23, 2014•0 citations
The notion of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) "element of reality" is much discussed in the literature on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Recently, it has become particularly relevant due to a proposed criterion of the physical reality of a given quantum mechanical observable [A. L. O. Bilobran and R. M. Angelo, Europhys. Lett. 112, 40005 (2015)]. We examine this proposal and its consequently related measure of non-locality [V. S. Gomez and R. M. Angelo, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012123, (2018)] and argue that the criterion is ill-described as quantifying physical reality without introducing serious inconsistency with the basic notions of realism that under-gird enquiry. We agree that this reality criterion demonstrates, along with the famous GHZ results, that general quantum observable values make for poor elements of reality. However, we also argue that this does not mean no such elements of reality are to be found in quantum theory. By arguing for, and adopting, probability distributions as these elements of reality instead, we demonstrate that the criterion of physical reality is actually one of observable predictability. We then examine the relationship of realism-based non-locality to the Bell form and find that, despite the flawed premise, this measure does indeed codify non-locality that is not captured by Bell inequalities.
Based on (i) the physical principle of local causality and (ii) a certain notion of elements of reality, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen put forward an argument showing that physical instances may exist in which two noncommuting observables can be joint elements of the physical reality. Here, we introduce a new criterion of joint reality. We demonstrate that according to this criterion, quantum mechanics generally prevents noncommuting observables from having joint elements of reality. In addition, we introduce a measure to quantify the extent to which the criterion is violated and explore the implications of such a measure in connection with incompatibility and correlations. Our findings suggest new manners of interpreting quantum phenomena.
Abstract The 1935 Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paper, “Can Quantum–Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, stands as a landmark in the foundational debates over quantum mechanics. While the paper has since become one of Einstein’s most cited works, it initially received little attention, and the feature of non-locality, which was central to the argument in the paper, was largely neglected for decades. In this paper, I offer two reasons for this early neglect of non-locality in the immediate aftermath of EPR. First, early responses to the EPR paper defended the completeness of quantum mechanics by reformulating the thought experiment the authors had presented, thereby obscuring the feature of quantum mechanics the authors had wished to highlight. Bohr’s influential reply, for instance, substituted the specific thought experiment presented by EPR with the two-slit experiment, thus suppressing the entanglement between spatially separated systems. A second reason for the marginalization of non-locality was the tendency to see Einstein’s critique of quantum mechanics as proceeding from a commitment to determinism, though this in fact played no role in the EPR paper or in his later writings and correspondence. This paper argues that the failure to recognize non-locality was partly a result of the rhetorical manoeuvring by EPR’s critics, but also to a broader philosophical climate dominated by concerns over determinism, which effectively eclipsed all other conceptual issues, Only with Bell’s theorem in the 1960s did non-locality return as a serious focus of foundational inquiry.
Local realism has been knocked down by the experiments with entangled pairs of particles based on Bell's theorem(J. S. Bell, Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) 1, 195 (1964)). However, there has been continuing debate on whether locality or realism is the problem. In this work, we analyzed the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment of Bohm's version using information theory and thermodynamics. The inference of non-locality from EPR experiments will be against the principle of non-realism of quantum mechanics. Therefore, the experiments about quantum entanglement cannot provide any proof to accuse locality.