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:1712.06746

Quantum supervaluationist account of the EPR paradox

Arkady Bolotin

Published Dec 19, 2017• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In the paper, the EPR paradox is explored by the approach of quantum supervaluationism that leads to a "gappy" semantics with the propositions giving rise to truth-value gaps. Within this approach, the statement, which asserts that in the singlet state the system of two (i.e., A and B) spin-1/2 particles possesses the a priori property "spin A is up and spin B is down along the same axis" or "spin A is down and spin B is up along the same axis", does not have the truth-value at all. Consequently, after the verification of, say, the proposition "spin A is up along the z-axis", the statistical population describing the valuation of the logical connective "spin B is down along the z-axis and spin B is up (down) along the x-axis" would have no elements.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1712.06746

Related papers

Quantum supervaluationism

Arkady Bolotin

As it is known, neither classical logical conjunction “and” nor classical logical alternative “either…or” can replace “+” representing a linear superposition of two quantum states. Therefore, to provide a logical account of the quantum superposition, one must either reconsider the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (making it fit for classical bivalent logic) or replace the standard logic with a deviant logic suitable for describing the superposition. In this paper, a supervaluation approach to the description of the quantum superposition is considered. In accordance with this approach, the indefinite propositions, which correspond to the superposition states, lack truth-values of any kind, even granting that their compounds (such as logical alternative “either…or”) can have truth-values. As an illustration, the supervaluationist account of the superposition of spin states is presented.

arXiv:1709.01207•Journal of Mathematical Physics•Dec 1, 2017•7 citations

Propositional counter-factual definiteness and the EPR paradox

Arkady Bolotin

In an empirical logic, an experimentally verifiable proposition P relating to a quantum system is assigned the value of either true of false if the system is in the pure state that belongs or, respectively, does not belong to the Hilbert subspace that represents P. Determined in such a way, truth or falsity of P can be termed “a factual truth-value” of P. In this present paper, it is proposed to consider “a counter-factual truth-value” of P, i.e., either of the values, true or false, that might have been taken by P if the system had been in a pure state belonging to a Hilbert subspace that does not represent P. The assumption that it is always possible to speak meaningfully of counter-factual truth-values of experimental propositions can be called “the hypothesis of propositional counter-factual definiteness.” As shown in this paper, this hypothesis lies at the basis of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (known as EPR) paradox, a striking and influential thought experiment intended to defy predictions of quantum mechanics, such as the one where measurements of spin along the different axes are incompatible. The purpose of this paper is to show that this hypothesis can be falsified by declining to paste together invariant-subspace lattices of contexts associated with the system (in other words, Boolean algebras or blocks) into one Hilbert lattice. Without such pasting, the EPR paradoxical inference cannot be reached.

arXiv:1901.08384•Journal of Mathematical Physics•Apr 1, 2019•4 citations

EPR paradox and Bell inequalities

Robert B. Griffiths

Bohm version of the EPR paradox Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) were concerned with the following issue. Given two spatially separated quantum systems A and B and an appropriate initial entangled state, a measurement of a property on system A can be an indirect measurement of B in the sense that from the outcome of the A measurement one can infer with probability 1 a property of B , because the two systems are correlated. There are cases in which either of two properties of B represented by noncommuting projectors can be measured indirectly in this manner, and EPR argued that this implied that system B could possess two incompatible properties at the same time, contrary to the principles of quantum theory. In order to understand this argument, it is best to apply it to a specific model system, and we shall do so using Bohm's formulation of the EPR paradox in which the systems A and B are two spin-half particles a and b in two different regions of space, with their spin degrees of freedom initially in a spin singlet state (23.2). As an aid to later discussion, we write the argument in the form of a set of numbered assertions leading to a paradox: a result which seems plausible, but contradicts the basic principles of quantum theory. The assertions E1–E4 are not intended to be exact counterparts of statements in the original EPR paper, even when the latter are translated into the language of spin-half particles. However, the general idea is very similar, and the basic conundrum is the same.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 29, 2001•1 citation

The Statistical Interpretation of Entangled States

B. C. Sanctuary

Entangled EPR spin pairs can be treated using the statistical ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics. As such the singlet state results from an ensemble of spin pairs each with an arbitrary axis of quantization. This axis acts as a quantum mechanical hidden variable. If the spins lose coherence they disentangle into a mixed state. Whether or not the EPR spin pairs retain entanglement or disentangle, however, the statistical ensemble interpretation resolves the EPR paradox and gives a mechanism for quantum "teleportation" without the need for instantaneous action-at-a-distance.

arXiv:quant-ph/0404011•Apr 1, 2004•1 citation

EPR Paradox and Quantum Field Theories

Renata Jora

"We discuss the EPR paradox and study an example of this in a quantum field theoretical context. We show that there is always an alternative description of QFT in which particles that interact at a moment in time remain entangled and therefore in a form of contact at any spatial or temporal separation. Consequently the correlations of spin or other properties of the particles long time after they cease to interact is perfectly natural and justifiable."

Romanian Journal of Physics•Dec 15, 2024•0 citations

The EPR paradox and the uncertainty principle

M. E. McCulloch, Jaume Giné

The EPR paradox appears when measurement results of some properties of two distantly entangled particles are correlated in a way that cannot be explained classically, and apparently violate locality. The resolution of the paradox depends on one’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. Explanations from quantum mechanics remain commonplace today, but they fail to explain the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) paradox totally in a way than can be accepted by the whole community. Here, we present a simple resolution to this paradox in which the uncertainty in the energy of the two-particle system is reduced by its lack of interaction during the journey so that the uncertainty in time becomes greater than the time they have been separating. Consequently, the present and past become indistinguishable because when we measure an observable in the system its value is the same as if the two particle were still together or very close. It is also argued that the destruction of information as the present and past become identical should release heat by Landauer’s principle, and this might make this proposal testable.

Modern Physics Letters B•Jan 18, 2021•2 citations
In the paper, the EPR paradox is explored by the approach of quantum supervaluationism that leads to a "gappy" semantics with the propositions giving rise to truth-value gaps. Within this approach, the statement, which asserts that in the singlet state the system of two (i.e., A and B) spin-1/2 particles possesses the a priori property "spin A is up and spin B is down along the same axis" or "spin A is down and spin B is up along the same axis", does not have the truth-value at all. Consequently, after the verification of, say, the proposition "spin A is up along the z-axis", the statistical population describing the valuation of the logical connective "spin B is down along the z-axis and spin B is up (down) along the x-axis" would have no elements.
As it is known, neither classical logical conjunction “and” nor classical logical alternative “either…or” can replace “+” representing a linear superposition of two quantum states. Therefore, to provide a logical account of the quantum superposition, one must either reconsider the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (making it fit for classical bivalent logic) or replace the standard logic with a deviant logic suitable for describing the superposition. In this paper, a supervaluation approach to the description of the quantum superposition is considered. In accordance with this approach, the indefinite propositions, which correspond to the superposition states, lack truth-values of any kind, even granting that their compounds (such as logical alternative “either…or”) can have truth-values. As an illustration, the supervaluationist account of the superposition of spin states is presented.
In an empirical logic, an experimentally verifiable proposition P relating to a quantum system is assigned the value of either true of false if the system is in the pure state that belongs or, respectively, does not belong to the Hilbert subspace that represents P. Determined in such a way, truth or falsity of P can be termed “a factual truth-value” of P. In this present paper, it is proposed to consider “a counter-factual truth-value” of P, i.e., either of the values, true or false, that might have been taken by P if the system had been in a pure state belonging to a Hilbert subspace that does not represent P. The assumption that it is always possible to speak meaningfully of counter-factual truth-values of experimental propositions can be called “the hypothesis of propositional counter-factual definiteness.” As shown in this paper, this hypothesis lies at the basis of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (known as EPR) paradox, a striking and influential thought experiment intended to defy predictions of quantum mechanics, such as the one where measurements of spin along the different axes are incompatible. The purpose of this paper is to show that this hypothesis can be falsified by declining to paste together invariant-subspace lattices of contexts associated with the system (in other words, Boolean algebras or blocks) into one Hilbert lattice. Without such pasting, the EPR paradoxical inference cannot be reached.
Bohm version of the EPR paradox Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) were concerned with the following issue. Given two spatially separated quantum systems A and B and an appropriate initial entangled state, a measurement of a property on system A can be an indirect measurement of B in the sense that from the outcome of the A measurement one can infer with probability 1 a property of B , because the two systems are correlated. There are cases in which either of two properties of B represented by noncommuting projectors can be measured indirectly in this manner, and EPR argued that this implied that system B could possess two incompatible properties at the same time, contrary to the principles of quantum theory. In order to understand this argument, it is best to apply it to a specific model system, and we shall do so using Bohm's formulation of the EPR paradox in which the systems A and B are two spin-half particles a and b in two different regions of space, with their spin degrees of freedom initially in a spin singlet state (23.2). As an aid to later discussion, we write the argument in the form of a set of numbered assertions leading to a paradox: a result which seems plausible, but contradicts the basic principles of quantum theory. The assertions E1–E4 are not intended to be exact counterparts of statements in the original EPR paper, even when the latter are translated into the language of spin-half particles. However, the general idea is very similar, and the basic conundrum is the same.
Entangled EPR spin pairs can be treated using the statistical ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics. As such the singlet state results from an ensemble of spin pairs each with an arbitrary axis of quantization. This axis acts as a quantum mechanical hidden variable. If the spins lose coherence they disentangle into a mixed state. Whether or not the EPR spin pairs retain entanglement or disentangle, however, the statistical ensemble interpretation resolves the EPR paradox and gives a mechanism for quantum "teleportation" without the need for instantaneous action-at-a-distance.
The EPR paradox appears when measurement results of some properties of two distantly entangled particles are correlated in a way that cannot be explained classically, and apparently violate locality. The resolution of the paradox depends on one’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. Explanations from quantum mechanics remain commonplace today, but they fail to explain the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) paradox totally in a way than can be accepted by the whole community. Here, we present a simple resolution to this paradox in which the uncertainty in the energy of the two-particle system is reduced by its lack of interaction during the journey so that the uncertainty in time becomes greater than the time they have been separating. Consequently, the present and past become indistinguishable because when we measure an observable in the system its value is the same as if the two particle were still together or very close. It is also argued that the destruction of information as the present and past become identical should release heat by Landauer’s principle, and this might make this proposal testable.