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:2609.04178

Measurements on the separated subsystems of an entangled state

Gregory D. Scholes

quant-phSubmitted Sep 3, 2026• Announced Sep 4, 2026• 0 citations
v1 · Sep 3, 2026v2 · Sep 8, 2026v3 · Oct 25, 2026
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The entangled states of composite quantum systems are well studied. The particle-like nature of these systems also means that, while entangled, they can be physically separated and measurements performed on the separated subsystems. Measurements on the separated subsystems A and B should pertain to vectors in the local Hilbert space of each subsystem, but to date it has not been clear how to elucidate the relevant states of the separated subsystems because it is not obvious how to resolve them from states given in the tensor product basis, except for the separable states. Here it is shown that the projections of any general entangled state that are detected by measurements on the separated subsystems can be obtained considering the corresponding (cosets of) states in the free vector space from which the tensor product space is defined. The result eliminates the need to invoke random collapse, and from this perspective nonlocality arises because of the way measurements on each separated subsystem projects possible measurement outcomes.

Related papers

Operational approach to the entanglement

Marian Kupczyński

In early days of quantum theory it was believed that the results of measurements performed on two distant physical systems should be uncorrelated thus their quantum state should be separable it means described by a simple tensor product of the individual local state vectors or a tensor product of individual local density operators. It was shown many years ago by EPR that two systems which interacted in the past and separated afterwards had to be described in most cases by particular non-separable states which are called entangled. It was noticed by Zanardi et al. that a Hilbert space of possible state vectors of compound physical system could be partitioned in different way by introducing various tensor product structures induced by the experimentally accessible observables (interactions and measurements). Therefore a separable state in one partition could become entangled in different partition. In this sense the entanglement was relative to a particular set of experimental capabilities. Continuing this line of thought Torre et al. claimed to prove that for any separable state there existed strongly correlated physical observables therefore all quantum states were entangled. The same claims one may find in several recent papers. In this paper we will discuss in operational way the differences existing between separable, non-separable and entangled states and we will show that the conclusions of Torre et al. were unjustified. A sufficient condition for entanglement is the violation of BI-CHSH and/or steering inequalities. Since there exist experiments outside the quantum physics violating these inequalities therefore in the operational approach one cannot say that the entanglement is an exclusive quantum phenomenon.

arXiv:1208.6532•Aug 31, 2012•0 citations

Product states, entanglement, and measurement

Art Hobson

A product state of a composite quantum system AB is customarily interpreted physically to mean subsystem A has property A1 and subsystem B has property B1. But this interpretation contradicts both the theory and observed outcomes of non-local interferometry experiments on the momentum-entangled state of two photons. These experiments demonstrate that product states must be interpreted physically as correlations, i.e. the product state means A has property A1 if and only if B has property B1. This clarification resolves the problem of definite outcomes and, with it, the measurement problem.

arXiv:1903.00526•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations

Demystification of quantum entanglement

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

One of the crucial differences between mathematical models of classical and quantum mechanics is the use of the tensor product of the state spaces of subsystems as the state space of the corresponding composite system. (To describe an ensemble of classical composite systems one uses random variables taking values in the Cartesian product of the state spaces of subsystems.) We show that, nevertheless, it is possible to establish a natural correspondence between the classical and quantum probabilistic descriptions of composite systems. Quantum averages for composite systems (including entangled) can be represented as averages with respect to classical random fields. It is essentially what Albert Einstein was dreamed of. Quantum mechanics is represented as classical statistical mechanics with infinite-dimensional phase space. While the mathematical construction is completely rigorous, its physical interpretation is a complicated problem (which will not be discussed in this paper).

arXiv:0905.4791•May 29, 2009•5 citations

Entangled states : Classical versus Quantum

S. Kanmani

Quantum mechanics of composite systems, gives rise to certain special states called entangled states. A physical system, that is in an entangled state displays an intricate correlation between its subsystems. There are also some composite quantum states (classically correlated states or separable states) that are not entangled. It is generally claimed, often without a rigorous proof to support, that these intricate correlations of an entangled state cannot occur in a classical system. This expository article, provides an elementary proof that entangled states cannot arise in the setting of classical mechanics. In addition, a detailed description of the origin of entanglement in quantum systems is included. The mathematical concepts that are necessary for this purpose are presented. The absence of entanglement in the classical setting is due to the fact that every pure classical state of a composite system is a product state, that is, a tensor product of two pure states of the subsystems. In contrast, there are pure composite quantum states that cannot be expressed in the form of a product state or even by a convex sum of product states. Roughly speaking, this is because classical states are positive valued functions on the phase-space while quantum states are positive linear operators. The structure of the tensor product between two commutative spaces of scalar valued functions is drastically different from that of the tensor product between two non-commutative spaces of linear operators. In other words, entanglement is a non-commutative phenomenon.

arXiv:0907.1784•Jul 10, 2009•0 citations

Mechanism of wavefunction collapse in measurements of separated quantum subsystems

Gregory D. Scholes

The specific advance of this work is to propose a mechanism by which superpositions collapse during measurement of the separated subsystems of entangled quantum states. It is shown how the phase that locks together entangled states plays a special role in the measurement of isolated subsystems. This `contextual' phase is installed randomly into the entangled state, and decides the measurement outcomes for the subsystems by directing the collapse of each superposition to a particular classical outcome when a subsystem is measured. The measuring apparatus thus obtains a classical read-out of the quantum correlations embedded in an entangled state. More broadly, these results solidify the theory of measurement of quantum superpositions.

quant-pharXiv:2605.20111•May 20, 2026•0 citations

Introduction

Alisa Bokulich, Gregg S. Jaeger

Entanglement can be understood as an extraordinary degree of correlation between states of quantum systems – a correlation that cannot be given an explanation in terms of something like a common cause. Entanglement can occur between two or more quantum systems, and the most interesting case is when these correlations occur between systems that are space-like separated, meaning that changes made to one system are immediately correlated with changes in a distant system even though there is no time for a signal to travel between them. In this case one says that quantum entanglement leads to non-local correlations, or non-locality. More precisely, entanglement can be defined in the following way. Consider two particles, A and B, whose (pure) states can be represented by the state vectors ψA and ψB. Instead of representing the state of each particle individually, one can represent the composite two-particle system by another wavefunction, Ψ AB. If the two particles are unentangled , then the composite state is just the tensor product of the states of the components: Ψ AB = ψ A ⊗ ψ B; the state is then said to be factorable (or separable). If the particles are entangled, however, then the state of the composite system cannot be written as such a product of a definite state for A and a definite state for B. This is how an entangled state is defined for pure states: a state is entangled if and only if it cannot be factored: Ψ AB ≠ ψ A ⊗ ψ B.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jun 10, 2010•0 citations
The entangled states of composite quantum systems are well studied. The particle-like nature of these systems also means that, while entangled, they can be physically separated and measurements performed on the separated subsystems. Measurements on the separated subsystems A and B should pertain to vectors in the local Hilbert space of each subsystem, but to date it has not been clear how to elucidate the relevant states of the separated subsystems because it is not obvious how to resolve them from states given in the tensor product basis, except for the separable states. Here it is shown that the projections of any general entangled state that are detected by measurements on the separated subsystems can be obtained considering the corresponding (cosets of) states in the free vector space from which the tensor product space is defined. The result eliminates the need to invoke random collapse, and from this perspective nonlocality arises because of the way measurements on each separated subsystem projects possible measurement outcomes.
In early days of quantum theory it was believed that the results of measurements performed on two distant physical systems should be uncorrelated thus their quantum state should be separable it means described by a simple tensor product of the individual local state vectors or a tensor product of individual local density operators. It was shown many years ago by EPR that two systems which interacted in the past and separated afterwards had to be described in most cases by particular non-separable states which are called entangled. It was noticed by Zanardi et al. that a Hilbert space of possible state vectors of compound physical system could be partitioned in different way by introducing various tensor product structures induced by the experimentally accessible observables (interactions and measurements). Therefore a separable state in one partition could become entangled in different partition. In this sense the entanglement was relative to a particular set of experimental capabilities. Continuing this line of thought Torre et al. claimed to prove that for any separable state there existed strongly correlated physical observables therefore all quantum states were entangled. The same claims one may find in several recent papers. In this paper we will discuss in operational way the differences existing between separable, non-separable and entangled states and we will show that the conclusions of Torre et al. were unjustified. A sufficient condition for entanglement is the violation of BI-CHSH and/or steering inequalities. Since there exist experiments outside the quantum physics violating these inequalities therefore in the operational approach one cannot say that the entanglement is an exclusive quantum phenomenon.
A product state of a composite quantum system AB is customarily interpreted physically to mean subsystem A has property A1 and subsystem B has property B1. But this interpretation contradicts both the theory and observed outcomes of non-local interferometry experiments on the momentum-entangled state of two photons. These experiments demonstrate that product states must be interpreted physically as correlations, i.e. the product state means A has property A1 if and only if B has property B1. This clarification resolves the problem of definite outcomes and, with it, the measurement problem.
One of the crucial differences between mathematical models of classical and quantum mechanics is the use of the tensor product of the state spaces of subsystems as the state space of the corresponding composite system. (To describe an ensemble of classical composite systems one uses random variables taking values in the Cartesian product of the state spaces of subsystems.) We show that, nevertheless, it is possible to establish a natural correspondence between the classical and quantum probabilistic descriptions of composite systems. Quantum averages for composite systems (including entangled) can be represented as averages with respect to classical random fields. It is essentially what Albert Einstein was dreamed of. Quantum mechanics is represented as classical statistical mechanics with infinite-dimensional phase space. While the mathematical construction is completely rigorous, its physical interpretation is a complicated problem (which will not be discussed in this paper).
Quantum mechanics of composite systems, gives rise to certain special states called entangled states. A physical system, that is in an entangled state displays an intricate correlation between its subsystems. There are also some composite quantum states (classically correlated states or separable states) that are not entangled. It is generally claimed, often without a rigorous proof to support, that these intricate correlations of an entangled state cannot occur in a classical system. This expository article, provides an elementary proof that entangled states cannot arise in the setting of classical mechanics. In addition, a detailed description of the origin of entanglement in quantum systems is included. The mathematical concepts that are necessary for this purpose are presented. The absence of entanglement in the classical setting is due to the fact that every pure classical state of a composite system is a product state, that is, a tensor product of two pure states of the subsystems. In contrast, there are pure composite quantum states that cannot be expressed in the form of a product state or even by a convex sum of product states. Roughly speaking, this is because classical states are positive valued functions on the phase-space while quantum states are positive linear operators. The structure of the tensor product between two commutative spaces of scalar valued functions is drastically different from that of the tensor product between two non-commutative spaces of linear operators. In other words, entanglement is a non-commutative phenomenon.
The specific advance of this work is to propose a mechanism by which superpositions collapse during measurement of the separated subsystems of entangled quantum states. It is shown how the phase that locks together entangled states plays a special role in the measurement of isolated subsystems. This `contextual' phase is installed randomly into the entangled state, and decides the measurement outcomes for the subsystems by directing the collapse of each superposition to a particular classical outcome when a subsystem is measured. The measuring apparatus thus obtains a classical read-out of the quantum correlations embedded in an entangled state. More broadly, these results solidify the theory of measurement of quantum superpositions.
Entanglement can be understood as an extraordinary degree of correlation between states of quantum systems – a correlation that cannot be given an explanation in terms of something like a common cause. Entanglement can occur between two or more quantum systems, and the most interesting case is when these correlations occur between systems that are space-like separated, meaning that changes made to one system are immediately correlated with changes in a distant system even though there is no time for a signal to travel between them. In this case one says that quantum entanglement leads to non-local correlations, or non-locality. More precisely, entanglement can be defined in the following way. Consider two particles, A and B, whose (pure) states can be represented by the state vectors ψA and ψB. Instead of representing the state of each particle individually, one can represent the composite two-particle system by another wavefunction, Ψ AB. If the two particles are unentangled , then the composite state is just the tensor product of the states of the components: Ψ AB = ψ A ⊗ ψ B; the state is then said to be factorable (or separable). If the particles are entangled, however, then the state of the composite system cannot be written as such a product of a definite state for A and a definite state for B. This is how an entangled state is defined for pure states: a state is entangled if and only if it cannot be factored: Ψ AB ≠ ψ A ⊗ ψ B.