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:1205.2734 · Pramana

Einstein–Podolski–Rosen paradox, non-commuting operator, complete wavefunction and entanglement

Andrew Das Arulsamy

Published Feb 25, 2014• 7 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/s12043-013-0678-1

Related papers

Bright entanglement and the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox with coupled parametric oscillators

N. Olivier, M. K. Olsen

Optics Communications•Oct 18, 2005•14 citations

Resolving the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, Bohm, and Aharonov Paradox with Non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics… for Photons

Lincoln Stoller

•Jan 1, 2026•0 citations

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and SU(2) relativity

Paul O’Hara

The EPR paradox dates back to 1935 when Einstein et al., through the use of non commuting operators, proposed that quantum mechanics was not complete[1] in that it suggested a "spooky action at a distance." Later in 1964 John Bell was able to express the dilemma in a simple inequality[2] involving spin singlet states. If the inequality were satisfied then Einstein was correct and if it were violated then it favored the quantum mechanics point of view. In what follows, we present two approaches to Bell's inequality, and then offer an interpretation from the viewpoint of quantum mechanics based on the principle that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. This is then combined with the properties of the SU (2) group to give a more intuitive understanding of non-locality and spin entanglement from the perspective of the relativistic characteristics of rotations.

arXiv:1901.07371•Journal of Physics Conference Series•May 1, 2019•3 citations

The Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox: 'can Quantum - Mechanical Description of Physical Reality BE Considered COMPLETE?'.

Donald L. Reisler

•Jan 1, 1967•0 citations

Tunable delay of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen entanglement

Alberto M. Marino, Raphael C. Pooser, Vincent Boyer +1 more

Nature•Feb 1, 2009•249 citations

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and quantum steering in pulsed optomechanics

Qiongyi He, M. D. Reid

We describe how to generate an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox between a mesoscopic mechanical oscillator and an optical pulse. We find two types of paradox, defined by whether it is the oscillator or the pulse that shows the effect Schr\"odinger called ``steering''. Only the oscillator paradox addresses the question of mesoscopic local reality for a massive system. In that case, EPR's ``elements of reality'' are defined for the oscillator, and it is these elements of reality that are falsified (if quantum mechanics is complete). For this sort of paradox, we show that a thermal barrier exists, meaning that a threshold level of pulse-oscillator interaction is required for a given thermal occupation ${n}_{0}$ of the oscillator. We find there is no equivalent thermal barrier for the entanglement of the pulse with the oscillator or for the EPR paradox that addresses the local reality of the optical system. Finally, we examine the possibility of an EPR paradox between two entangled oscillators. Our work highlights the asymmetrical effect of thermal noise on quantum nonlocality.

arXiv:1211.1779•Physical Review A•Nov 19, 2013•92 citations
The EPR paradox dates back to 1935 when Einstein et al., through the use of non commuting operators, proposed that quantum mechanics was not complete[1] in that it suggested a "spooky action at a distance." Later in 1964 John Bell was able to express the dilemma in a simple inequality[2] involving spin singlet states. If the inequality were satisfied then Einstein was correct and if it were violated then it favored the quantum mechanics point of view. In what follows, we present two approaches to Bell's inequality, and then offer an interpretation from the viewpoint of quantum mechanics based on the principle that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. This is then combined with the properties of the SU (2) group to give a more intuitive understanding of non-locality and spin entanglement from the perspective of the relativistic characteristics of rotations.
We describe how to generate an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox between a mesoscopic mechanical oscillator and an optical pulse. We find two types of paradox, defined by whether it is the oscillator or the pulse that shows the effect Schr\"odinger called ``steering''. Only the oscillator paradox addresses the question of mesoscopic local reality for a massive system. In that case, EPR's ``elements of reality'' are defined for the oscillator, and it is these elements of reality that are falsified (if quantum mechanics is complete). For this sort of paradox, we show that a thermal barrier exists, meaning that a threshold level of pulse-oscillator interaction is required for a given thermal occupation n0{n}_{0}n0​ of the oscillator. We find there is no equivalent thermal barrier for the entanglement of the pulse with the oscillator or for the EPR paradox that addresses the local reality of the optical system. Finally, we examine the possibility of an EPR paradox between two entangled oscillators. Our work highlights the asymmetrical effect of thermal noise on quantum nonlocality.