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:1607.01808 · Advanced Science Engineering and Medicine

The Quantum Prediction for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Experiments

Donald A. Graft

Published Jan 1, 2017• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Quantum mechanics allows for multiple predictions for the outcome of an EPR experiment. The correct calculation must be used, guided by the physical conditions of the experiment. The quantum joint prediction for EPR correlation is derived and shown to involve a single sampling. The solution for separated measurement, where there are two private samplings, is then developed using orthodox quantum mechanics with Luders' rule for state projection on measurement. The separated solution is shown to duplicate the predictions of the quantum joint solution. However, it is shown that this solution requires superluminal transmission of information and therefore it is physically impossible. Alternative predictions respecting special relativity are developed using both Von Neumann projection and null projection (no projection at all). Conditions for the proper application of state projection rules are considered and Luders' rule is identified as the primary culprit in the EPR paradox. It cannot be applied to EPR.

DOI
10.1166/asem.2017.1958

Related papers

Towards an Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox between two macroscopic atomic ensembles at room temperature

Qiongyi He, M. D. Reid

Experiments have reported the entanglement of two spatially separated macroscopic atomic ensembles at room temperature (Krauter et al 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 080503; Julsgaard et al 2001 Nature 413 400). We show how an Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox is realizable with this experiment. Our proposed test involves violation of an inferred Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is a sufficient condition for an EPR paradox. This is a stronger test of nonlocality than entanglement. Our proposal would enable the first definitive confirmation of quantum EPR paradox correlations between two macroscopic objects at room temperature. This is a necessary intermediate step towards a nonlocal experiment with causal measurement separations. As well as having fundamental significance, the realization of an atomic EPR paradox could provide a resource for novel applications in quantum technology.

arXiv:1310.7296•New Journal of Physics•Jun 20, 2013•15 citations

A predictive solution of the EPR paradox

Henryk Gzyl

In this work, we examine the paradox proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR). They argued that since one may know the exact momentum of a particle without measurement and subsequently measure its position, a contradiction with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle arises. We demonstrate that there is no paradox by two equivalent approaches: first, by computing the quantum conditional expectation to make predictions after a measurement; and second, using the von Neumann post-measurement state. We establish the equivalence between these two methods. In both cases the predictor is an operator valued function of the observables being measured. This ensures that no violation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle occurs.

arXiv:2508.20788•Aug 28, 2025•0 citations

The solution to the "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox"

Roman Schnabel

In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen ('EPR') reported on a thought experiment that they believed showed that quantum theory provided an incomplete description of reality. Today we know that quantum theory is a complete and correct description of Nature (in flat space-time). The EPR thought experiment is predicted by quantum theory and has since been experimentally confirmed. However, EPR experiments have no physical pictorial explanation, and are considered part of a "paradox". Here I resolve the "paradox". I show independently of any interpretation of quantum theory that EPR (thought) experiments are a direct and compelling consequence of the existence of true randomness and the conservation of energy. It becomes obvious why EPR (thought) experiments allow for the precise prediction of truly random measurement values. Local hidden variables are not motivated.

arXiv:2208.13831•Aug 29, 2022•1 citation

On some EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) issues

Giuseppe Giuliani

A critical reconsideration of the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paper shows that the EPR argument can be developed without using the concept of `element of physical reality', thus eliminating any philosophical element in the logical chains of the paper. Deprived of its philosophical ornament, the EPR argument plainly reduces to require what quantum mechanics can not do: to assign definite values to two incompatible physical quantities. Hidden variables theories built up according to Bell - type theorems are formulated on the basis of the assumption that the locality condition implies the statistical independence between two measurements space - like separated. This assumption is valid only with the additional one that statistical dependence between two measurements requires a causal connection between them. This additional assumption rules out the possibility that statistical dependence may due to an intrinsic property of the physical system under study. Therefore, hidden variables theories are built up with a restriction which leads them to be disproved by experiment. Quantum mechanical non - locality, invoked for describing EPR - type experiments, is strictly connected to the hypothesis (NDV hypothesis) according to which the twin photons of entangled pairs do not have a definite polarization before measurements. Both hypotheses are used only for describing EPR experiments and not for making predictions. Therefore, they can be dropped without reducing the predictive power of quantum mechanics concerning entangled photons pairs. Furthermore, both hypotheses can be experimentally tested by a modification of a standard experimental apparatus designed for studying entangled photons pairs.

arXiv:2001.00553•Jan 2, 2020•0 citations

Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and EPR

Robert K. Clifton, Constantine Pagonis, Itamar Pitowsky

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics involves two assumptions: one about locality and the other about when it is legitimate to infer the existence of an element-of-reality. Using one simple thought experiment, we argue that quantum predictions and the relativity of simultaneity require that both these assumptions fail, whether or not quantum mechanics is complete. EPR’s (1935) argument for the incompleteness of QM turns upon the following sufficient condition: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.“ EPR apply this condition in a case where knowledge gained from measuring one quantum system allows one to predict with certainty a value for a physical quantity on another.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1992•28 citations

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Entanglement 1: Signatures of EPR correlations for continuous variables

M. D. Reid

A generalization of the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument for measurements with continuous variable outcomes is presented to establish criteria for the demonstration of the EPR paradox, for situations where the correlation between spatially separated subsystems is not perfect. Two types of criteria for EPR correlations are determined. The first type are based on measurements of the variances of conditional probability distributions and are necessary to reflect directly the situation of the original EPR paradox. The second weaker set of EPR criteria are based on the proven failure of (Bell-type) local realistic theories which could be consistent with a local quantum description for each subsystem. The relationship with criteria sufficient to prove entanglement is established, to show that any demonstration of EPR correlations will also signify entanglement. It is also shown how a demonstration of entanglement between two spatially separated subsystems, if not able to interpreted as a violation of a Bell-type inequality, may be interpreted as a demonstration of the EPR correlations. In particular it is explained how the experimental observation of two-mode squeezing using spatially separated detectors will signify not only entanglement but EPR correlations defined in a general sense.

arXiv:quant-ph/0112038•Dec 7, 2001•2 citations
Quantum mechanics allows for multiple predictions for the outcome of an EPR experiment. The correct calculation must be used, guided by the physical conditions of the experiment. The quantum joint prediction for EPR correlation is derived and shown to involve a single sampling. The solution for separated measurement, where there are two private samplings, is then developed using orthodox quantum mechanics with Luders' rule for state projection on measurement. The separated solution is shown to duplicate the predictions of the quantum joint solution. However, it is shown that this solution requires superluminal transmission of information and therefore it is physically impossible. Alternative predictions respecting special relativity are developed using both Von Neumann projection and null projection (no projection at all). Conditions for the proper application of state projection rules are considered and Luders' rule is identified as the primary culprit in the EPR paradox. It cannot be applied to EPR.
Experiments have reported the entanglement of two spatially separated macroscopic atomic ensembles at room temperature (Krauter et al 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 080503; Julsgaard et al 2001 Nature 413 400). We show how an Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox is realizable with this experiment. Our proposed test involves violation of an inferred Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is a sufficient condition for an EPR paradox. This is a stronger test of nonlocality than entanglement. Our proposal would enable the first definitive confirmation of quantum EPR paradox correlations between two macroscopic objects at room temperature. This is a necessary intermediate step towards a nonlocal experiment with causal measurement separations. As well as having fundamental significance, the realization of an atomic EPR paradox could provide a resource for novel applications in quantum technology.
In this work, we examine the paradox proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR). They argued that since one may know the exact momentum of a particle without measurement and subsequently measure its position, a contradiction with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle arises. We demonstrate that there is no paradox by two equivalent approaches: first, by computing the quantum conditional expectation to make predictions after a measurement; and second, using the von Neumann post-measurement state. We establish the equivalence between these two methods. In both cases the predictor is an operator valued function of the observables being measured. This ensures that no violation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle occurs.
In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen ('EPR') reported on a thought experiment that they believed showed that quantum theory provided an incomplete description of reality. Today we know that quantum theory is a complete and correct description of Nature (in flat space-time). The EPR thought experiment is predicted by quantum theory and has since been experimentally confirmed. However, EPR experiments have no physical pictorial explanation, and are considered part of a "paradox". Here I resolve the "paradox". I show independently of any interpretation of quantum theory that EPR (thought) experiments are a direct and compelling consequence of the existence of true randomness and the conservation of energy. It becomes obvious why EPR (thought) experiments allow for the precise prediction of truly random measurement values. Local hidden variables are not motivated.
A critical reconsideration of the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paper shows that the EPR argument can be developed without using the concept of `element of physical reality', thus eliminating any philosophical element in the logical chains of the paper. Deprived of its philosophical ornament, the EPR argument plainly reduces to require what quantum mechanics can not do: to assign definite values to two incompatible physical quantities. Hidden variables theories built up according to Bell - type theorems are formulated on the basis of the assumption that the locality condition implies the statistical independence between two measurements space - like separated. This assumption is valid only with the additional one that statistical dependence between two measurements requires a causal connection between them. This additional assumption rules out the possibility that statistical dependence may due to an intrinsic property of the physical system under study. Therefore, hidden variables theories are built up with a restriction which leads them to be disproved by experiment. Quantum mechanical non - locality, invoked for describing EPR - type experiments, is strictly connected to the hypothesis (NDV hypothesis) according to which the twin photons of entangled pairs do not have a definite polarization before measurements. Both hypotheses are used only for describing EPR experiments and not for making predictions. Therefore, they can be dropped without reducing the predictive power of quantum mechanics concerning entangled photons pairs. Furthermore, both hypotheses can be experimentally tested by a modification of a standard experimental apparatus designed for studying entangled photons pairs.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics involves two assumptions: one about locality and the other about when it is legitimate to infer the existence of an element-of-reality. Using one simple thought experiment, we argue that quantum predictions and the relativity of simultaneity require that both these assumptions fail, whether or not quantum mechanics is complete. EPR’s (1935) argument for the incompleteness of QM turns upon the following sufficient condition: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.“ EPR apply this condition in a case where knowledge gained from measuring one quantum system allows one to predict with certainty a value for a physical quantity on another.
A generalization of the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument for measurements with continuous variable outcomes is presented to establish criteria for the demonstration of the EPR paradox, for situations where the correlation between spatially separated subsystems is not perfect. Two types of criteria for EPR correlations are determined. The first type are based on measurements of the variances of conditional probability distributions and are necessary to reflect directly the situation of the original EPR paradox. The second weaker set of EPR criteria are based on the proven failure of (Bell-type) local realistic theories which could be consistent with a local quantum description for each subsystem. The relationship with criteria sufficient to prove entanglement is established, to show that any demonstration of EPR correlations will also signify entanglement. It is also shown how a demonstration of entanglement between two spatially separated subsystems, if not able to interpreted as a violation of a Bell-type inequality, may be interpreted as a demonstration of the EPR correlations. In particular it is explained how the experimental observation of two-mode squeezing using spatially separated detectors will signify not only entanglement but EPR correlations defined in a general sense.