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

Research on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

Oreste Piccioni, Werner A. W. Mehlhop, Brian C. Wright

Published Jun 1, 1989• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

This report discusses the following: The analysis of the singlet state of separate fermions proves that the EPR contradicts QM. The violation of special relativity. The Schroedinger equation and the EPR. The conservation of angular momentum. The proposal of collapse. The factorization of the spin states. The superposition principle. No paradox exists within the theory. The original state of Einstein et al is not a valid example of the EPR, and it seems impossible to construct a valid linear momentum example. This is another indication that the EPR contradicts QM. Actions at a distance, the model of Einstein et al for particles with mass, and Bell's inequalities and their physical meaning.

Related papers

Avoiding Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Paradox: Towards a More Physically Adequate Description of a Quantum State

Joseph Bernal, Olga M. Kosheleva, Владик Крейнович

The famous EPR paradox shows that if we describe quantum particles in the usual way -- by their wave functions -- then we get the following seeming contradiction. If we entangle the states of the two particles, then move them far away from each other, and measure the state of the first particle, then the state of the second particle immediately changes -- which contradicts to special relativity, according to which such immediate-action-at-a-distance is not possible. It is known that, from the physical viewpoint, this is not a real paradox: if we measure any property of the second particle, the results will not change whether we perform the measurement on the first particle or not. What the above argument shows is that the usual wave function description of a quantum state does not always adequately describe the corresponding physics. In this paper, we propose a new, more physically adequate description of a quantum state, a description in which there is no EPR paradox: measurements performed at the first particle does not change the state of the remote second one.

•Jan 1, 2019•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

On Wavefunction Collapse, the Einstein-Poldolsky-Rosen Paradox and Measurement in Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory

Stuart Samuel

We first consider the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox for the system of two particles with spin 1/2 with entangled spins in first-quantized quantum mechanics (QM). If measurement is governed by wavefunction collapse, then gedanken experiments show that a number of fundamental principles including conservation of angular momentum and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be violated. We conclude that the collapse of the spin part of the wavefunction cannot happen and therefore an EPR paradox does not arise for this system. QM unitarity alone is sufficient to rule out "spooky" action at a distance. The absence of spin wavefunction collapse leads to several interesting conclusions about how measurement works in QM: When wavefunction collapse does not happen, (i) a signal from a macroscopic measuring device indicating that a system is in a state S does not necessarily mean that it is or was in S and (ii) the uncertainty in QM at the microscopic level is transmitted to uncertainty in signals for the macroscopic measuring device. We derive two general results on how quantum measurement works and illustrate them in a spin-1/2 measurement. In contrast to first-quantized QM, in quantum field theory we are unable to fully rule out the possibility of wavefunction collapse. However, when we insist on unitarity (thereby excluding the possibility of wavefunction collapse) and additionally take into account in the wavefunction all degrees of freedom involved in the measurement (including those of the equipment, experimentalists, etc.), a consistant acceptable understanding of the Bell-inequality-type experiments involving entangled photon polarizations emerges including the absence of an EPR paradox. The ability of an experimentalist to be aware of his perceptions but unable to be conscious of other components of a generalized Schrodinger Cat plays a role in resolving the Measurement Problem.

arXiv:1910.11134•Oct 22, 2019•1 citation

On EPR Paradox, No Entanglement Theorem for Separate Particles and Consequences

V. K. Igatovich

EPR paper contains an error. Its correction leads to a conclusion that position and momentum of a particle can be defined precisely simultaneously, EPR paradox does not exist and uncertainty relations have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Logic of the EPR paper shows that entangled states of separated particles do not exist and therefore there are no nonlocality in quantum mechanics. Bell's inequalities are never violated, and results of experiments, proving their violation, are shown to be false. Experiments to prove absence of nonlocality are proposed where Bell's inequalities are replaced by precise prediction. Interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of classical field theory is suggested. Censorship against this paper is demonstrated.

arXiv:1007.3202•Jan 1, 2010•0 citations

Spin-1 photons, spin-1/2 electrons, Bell's inequalities, and Feynman's special perspective on quantum mechanics

Masud Mansuripur

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox that argues for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics as a description of physical reality has been put to rest by John Bell’s famous theorem, which inspired numerous experimental tests and brought about further affirmations of quantum reality. Nevertheless, in his writings and public presentations, Richard Feynman never acknowledged the significance of Bell’s contribution to the resolution of the EPR paradox. In this paper, we discuss several variants of the Bell inequalities (including one that was specifically espoused by Feynman), and explore the ways in which they demolish the arguments in favor of local hidden-variable theories. We also examine the roots of Feynman’s attitude toward Bell’s theorem in the context of Feynman’s special perspective on quantum mechanics.

arXiv:2210.03365•Spintronics•Oct 3, 2022•3 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
This report discusses the following: The analysis of the singlet state of separate fermions proves that the EPR contradicts QM. The violation of special relativity. The Schroedinger equation and the EPR. The conservation of angular momentum. The proposal of collapse. The factorization of the spin states. The superposition principle. No paradox exists within the theory. The original state of Einstein et al is not a valid example of the EPR, and it seems impossible to construct a valid linear momentum example. This is another indication that the EPR contradicts QM. Actions at a distance, the model of Einstein et al for particles with mass, and Bell's inequalities and their physical meaning.
The famous EPR paradox shows that if we describe quantum particles in the usual way -- by their wave functions -- then we get the following seeming contradiction. If we entangle the states of the two particles, then move them far away from each other, and measure the state of the first particle, then the state of the second particle immediately changes -- which contradicts to special relativity, according to which such immediate-action-at-a-distance is not possible. It is known that, from the physical viewpoint, this is not a real paradox: if we measure any property of the second particle, the results will not change whether we perform the measurement on the first particle or not. What the above argument shows is that the usual wave function description of a quantum state does not always adequately describe the corresponding physics. In this paper, we propose a new, more physically adequate description of a quantum state, a description in which there is no EPR paradox: measurements performed at the first particle does not change the state of the remote second one.
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 first consider the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox for the system of two particles with spin 1/2 with entangled spins in first-quantized quantum mechanics (QM). If measurement is governed by wavefunction collapse, then gedanken experiments show that a number of fundamental principles including conservation of angular momentum and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be violated. We conclude that the collapse of the spin part of the wavefunction cannot happen and therefore an EPR paradox does not arise for this system. QM unitarity alone is sufficient to rule out "spooky" action at a distance. The absence of spin wavefunction collapse leads to several interesting conclusions about how measurement works in QM: When wavefunction collapse does not happen, (i) a signal from a macroscopic measuring device indicating that a system is in a state S does not necessarily mean that it is or was in S and (ii) the uncertainty in QM at the microscopic level is transmitted to uncertainty in signals for the macroscopic measuring device. We derive two general results on how quantum measurement works and illustrate them in a spin-1/2 measurement. In contrast to first-quantized QM, in quantum field theory we are unable to fully rule out the possibility of wavefunction collapse. However, when we insist on unitarity (thereby excluding the possibility of wavefunction collapse) and additionally take into account in the wavefunction all degrees of freedom involved in the measurement (including those of the equipment, experimentalists, etc.), a consistant acceptable understanding of the Bell-inequality-type experiments involving entangled photon polarizations emerges including the absence of an EPR paradox. The ability of an experimentalist to be aware of his perceptions but unable to be conscious of other components of a generalized Schrodinger Cat plays a role in resolving the Measurement Problem.
EPR paper contains an error. Its correction leads to a conclusion that position and momentum of a particle can be defined precisely simultaneously, EPR paradox does not exist and uncertainty relations have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Logic of the EPR paper shows that entangled states of separated particles do not exist and therefore there are no nonlocality in quantum mechanics. Bell's inequalities are never violated, and results of experiments, proving their violation, are shown to be false. Experiments to prove absence of nonlocality are proposed where Bell's inequalities are replaced by precise prediction. Interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of classical field theory is suggested. Censorship against this paper is demonstrated.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox that argues for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics as a description of physical reality has been put to rest by John Bell’s famous theorem, which inspired numerous experimental tests and brought about further affirmations of quantum reality. Nevertheless, in his writings and public presentations, Richard Feynman never acknowledged the significance of Bell’s contribution to the resolution of the EPR paradox. In this paper, we discuss several variants of the Bell inequalities (including one that was specifically espoused by Feynman), and explore the ways in which they demolish the arguments in favor of local hidden-variable theories. We also examine the roots of Feynman’s attitude toward Bell’s theorem in the context of Feynman’s special perspective on quantum mechanics.
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.