© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

arXiv:2405.05756

Everything is Entangled in Quantum Mechanics: Are the Orthodox Measures Physically Meaningful?

Christian DE RONDE, Raimundo Fernández Mouján, César Massri

Published May 9, 2024• 0 citations

Abstract

Even though quantum entanglement is today's most essential concept within the new technological era of quantum information processing, we do not only lack a consistent definition of this kernel notion, we are also far from understanding its physical meaning [35]. These failures have lead to many problems when attempting to provide a consistent measure or quantification of entanglement. In fact, the two main lines of contemporary research within the orthodox literature have created mazes where inconsistencies and problems are found everywhere. While the operational-instrumentalist approach has failed to explain how inequalities are able to distinguish the classical from the quantum, the geometrical approach has failed to provide a consistent meaningful account of their entropic measure. Taking distance from orthodoxy, in this work we address the quantification and measure of quantum entanglement by considering a recently presented objective-invariant definition in terms of the coding of intensive relations [21] which allows to escape the widespread relativist account of bases and factorizations [24, 25]. Going beyond the orthodox dualistic reference to "quantum particles" and "clicks" in detectors, we will argue that this new line of research is capable not only to evade the many open problems which appear within the mainstream literature, but is also able to present a consistent and coherent physical understanding of entanglement. The main conclusion of this work is that in quantum mechanics -- contrary to what is generally presupposed -- all operational expressions found within the laboratory are intrinsically entangled.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2405.05756

Related papers

Against Collapses, Purity and Separability Within the Definition of Quantum Entanglement

Christian DE RONDE, César Massri

In this paper we we will argue against the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement which has been implicitly grounded on several widespread (metaphysical) presuppositions which have no relation whatsoever to the formalism of QM. We will show how these presuppositions have been introduced through a naive interpretation of the quantum mathematical structure which assumes dogmatically that the theory talks about "small particles" represented by pure states (in general, superpositions) which suddenly "collapse" when a measurement takes place. In the second part of this paper we will present a non-collapse approach to QM which makes no use whatsoever of particle metaphysics, escaping the need to make reference to space-time separability or the restriction to certain predictions of definite valued binary properties. Our paper ends up concluding the essential need to redefine the notion of quantum entanglement, at least in the cases of: i) non-collapse interpretations of QM; or, ii) any other interpretation which abandons the idea that QM makes reference to "small particles".

arXiv:1808.10030•Aug 25, 2018•0 citations

Against 'Particle Metaphysics' and 'Collapses' within the Definition of Quantum Entanglement

Christian DE RONDE, César Massri

In this paper we argue against the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement which has been explicitly grounded on several "common sense" (metaphysical) presuppositions and presents today serious formal and conceptual drawbacks. This interpretation which some researchers in the field call "minimal", has ended up creating a narrative according to which QM talks about "small particles" represented by pure states (in general, superpositions) which --each time someone attempts to observe what is going on-- suddenly "collapse" to a single measurement outcome. After discussing the consequences of applying 'particle metaphysics' within the definition of entanglement we turn our attention to two recent approaches which might offer an interesting way out of this metaphysical conundrum. Both approaches concentrate their efforts in going beyond the notion of 'system'. While the first, called device-independent approach, proposes an operational anti-metaphysical scheme in which language plays an essential role; the second approach, takes an essentially metaphysical path which attempts to present a new non-classical representation grounded on intensive relations which, in turn, imposes the need to reconsider the definition and meaning of quantum entanglement.

arXiv:1911.10990•Nov 21, 2019•2 citations

Are quantum systems physical objects with physical properties?

Michel Paty

Despite its power as the conceptual basis for a huge range of physical phenomena in atomic and subatomic physics, quantum mechanics still suffers from a lack of clarity regarding the physical meaning of its fundamental theoretical concepts, such as those of quantum state and of quantum theoretical quantities or variables , dealt with by the known mathematical-theoretical rules. These concepts have generally been considered as not giving a direct description of physical systems, for they do not correspond to what is usually understood by `physical states' or `physical properties', notably characterized by definite numerical values such as those obtained from measurement. The situation has been tentatively expressed in terms of various `interpretations', conceived not only with regard to the physical meanings of mathematical quantities, but also in connection with philosophical statements about `physical reality'. The question of whether or not quantum theoretical quantities describe definite physical systems existing in nature has therefore generally been considered as beyond the possibilities of physics, because of the definitions that are commonly taken for `physical state' and `physical quantity'. We sketch the main ideas on this problem and propose a possible way out of the puzzle, in terms of an extension of the meaning given to the concepts of the physical state and physical quantity of a system, which would allow one, without any theoretical change in quantum mechanics, to speak consistently of real quantum systems as having definite physical properties .

European Journal of Physics•Nov 1, 1999•31 citations

Can the entanglement be considered a basic concept of quantum mechanics?

Canio Noce, Lidia Truda, Alberto Trotta

Recently, several experimental tests devoted to quantitatively establish complementarity relations in quantum systems have been reported. Starting from the results of fully quantum single-particle self-interference experiments, we critically review the concept of entanglement, arguing that this quantity is a peculiar trait of composite quantum systems, and thus it can be looked as a basic concept of quantum mechanics.

Science & philosophy•Jun 30, 2022•1 citation

Evidence of entanglement, or: Is Schrödinger's cat really entangled?

Kedar S. Ranade, K. Dechoum

Quantum effects and, in particular, entanglement are by now widely recognized in all areas of physics and related fields. However, we feel that the precise notion of entanglement---though mathematically well-defined---still generates confusion even in the academic environment. Our aim in this article is to point out and clarify some aspects of the notion of entanglement, in particular with respect to observable quantities. We do this by illustrating common misconceptions with Schrödinger's cat paradox, explain them in mathematical terms and provide examples where misunderstandings arise and how they can be solved.

arXiv:1308.3098•Aug 14, 2013•0 citations

The Logos Categorical Approach to Quantum Mechanics: III. Relational Potential Coding and Quantum Entanglement Beyond Collapses, Pure States and Particle Metaphysics

Christian DE RONDE, César Massri

In this paper we consider the notion of quantum entanglement from the perspective of the logos categorical approach [26, 27]. Firstly, we will argue that the widespread distinctions, on the one hand, between pure states and mixed states, and on the other, between separable states and entangled states, are completely superfluous when considering the orthodox mathematical formalism of QM. We will then argue that the introduction of these distinctions within the theory of quanta is due to another two completely unjustified metaphysical presuppositions, namely, the idea that there is a "collapse" of quantum states when being measured and the idea that QM talks about "elementary particles". At distance from these distinctions and taking the logos approach as a standpoint, we will propose an objective formal account of the notion of entanglement in terms of potential coding which introduces the necessary distinction between intensive relations and effective relations. We will also discuss how this new definition of entanglement provides an anschaulich content to this --supposedly "spooky"-- quantum relational feature.

arXiv:1807.08344•Jul 22, 2018•1 citation

Even though quantum entanglement is today's most essential concept within the new technological era of quantum information processing, we do not only lack a consistent definition of this kernel notion, we are also far from understanding its physical meaning [35]. These failures have lead to many problems when attempting to provide a consistent measure or quantification of entanglement. In fact, the two main lines of contemporary research within the orthodox literature have created mazes where inconsistencies and problems are found everywhere. While the operational-instrumentalist approach has failed to explain how inequalities are able to distinguish the classical from the quantum, the geometrical approach has failed to provide a consistent meaningful account of their entropic measure. Taking distance from orthodoxy, in this work we address the quantification and measure of quantum entanglement by considering a recently presented objective-invariant definition in terms of the coding of intensive relations [21] which allows to escape the widespread relativist account of bases and factorizations [24, 25]. Going beyond the orthodox dualistic reference to "quantum particles" and "clicks" in detectors, we will argue that this new line of research is capable not only to evade the many open problems which appear within the mainstream literature, but is also able to present a consistent and coherent physical understanding of entanglement. The main conclusion of this work is that in quantum mechanics -- contrary to what is generally presupposed -- all operational expressions found within the laboratory are intrinsically entangled.

In this paper we we will argue against the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement which has been implicitly grounded on several widespread (metaphysical) presuppositions which have no relation whatsoever to the formalism of QM. We will show how these presuppositions have been introduced through a naive interpretation of the quantum mathematical structure which assumes dogmatically that the theory talks about "small particles" represented by pure states (in general, superpositions) which suddenly "collapse" when a measurement takes place. In the second part of this paper we will present a non-collapse approach to QM which makes no use whatsoever of particle metaphysics, escaping the need to make reference to space-time separability or the restriction to certain predictions of definite valued binary properties. Our paper ends up concluding the essential need to redefine the notion of quantum entanglement, at least in the cases of: i) non-collapse interpretations of QM; or, ii) any other interpretation which abandons the idea that QM makes reference to "small particles".

In this paper we argue against the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement which has been explicitly grounded on several "common sense" (metaphysical) presuppositions and presents today serious formal and conceptual drawbacks. This interpretation which some researchers in the field call "minimal", has ended up creating a narrative according to which QM talks about "small particles" represented by pure states (in general, superpositions) which --each time someone attempts to observe what is going on-- suddenly "collapse" to a single measurement outcome. After discussing the consequences of applying 'particle metaphysics' within the definition of entanglement we turn our attention to two recent approaches which might offer an interesting way out of this metaphysical conundrum. Both approaches concentrate their efforts in going beyond the notion of 'system'. While the first, called device-independent approach, proposes an operational anti-metaphysical scheme in which language plays an essential role; the second approach, takes an essentially metaphysical path which attempts to present a new non-classical representation grounded on intensive relations which, in turn, imposes the need to reconsider the definition and meaning of quantum entanglement.

Despite its power as the conceptual basis for a huge range of physical phenomena in atomic and subatomic physics, quantum mechanics still suffers from a lack of clarity regarding the physical meaning of its fundamental theoretical concepts, such as those of quantum state and of quantum theoretical quantities or variables , dealt with by the known mathematical-theoretical rules. These concepts have generally been considered as not giving a direct description of physical systems, for they do not correspond to what is usually understood by `physical states' or `physical properties', notably characterized by definite numerical values such as those obtained from measurement. The situation has been tentatively expressed in terms of various `interpretations', conceived not only with regard to the physical meanings of mathematical quantities, but also in connection with philosophical statements about `physical reality'. The question of whether or not quantum theoretical quantities describe definite physical systems existing in nature has therefore generally been considered as beyond the possibilities of physics, because of the definitions that are commonly taken for `physical state' and `physical quantity'. We sketch the main ideas on this problem and propose a possible way out of the puzzle, in terms of an extension of the meaning given to the concepts of the physical state and physical quantity of a system, which would allow one, without any theoretical change in quantum mechanics, to speak consistently of real quantum systems as having definite physical properties .

Quantum effects and, in particular, entanglement are by now widely recognized in all areas of physics and related fields. However, we feel that the precise notion of entanglement---though mathematically well-defined---still generates confusion even in the academic environment. Our aim in this article is to point out and clarify some aspects of the notion of entanglement, in particular with respect to observable quantities. We do this by illustrating common misconceptions with Schrödinger's cat paradox, explain them in mathematical terms and provide examples where misunderstandings arise and how they can be solved.

In this paper we consider the notion of quantum entanglement from the perspective of the logos categorical approach [26, 27]. Firstly, we will argue that the widespread distinctions, on the one hand, between pure states and mixed states, and on the other, between separable states and entangled states, are completely superfluous when considering the orthodox mathematical formalism of QM. We will then argue that the introduction of these distinctions within the theory of quanta is due to another two completely unjustified metaphysical presuppositions, namely, the idea that there is a "collapse" of quantum states when being measured and the idea that QM talks about "elementary particles". At distance from these distinctions and taking the logos approach as a standpoint, we will propose an objective formal account of the notion of entanglement in terms of potential coding which introduces the necessary distinction between intensive relations and effective relations. We will also discuss how this new definition of entanglement provides an anschaulich content to this --supposedly "spooky"-- quantum relational feature.