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

Some comments on the EPR (The reasons why experiments should still be done)

Oreste Piccioni, B. Wright

Published Oct 1, 1993• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

The authors believe that much of the contradiction they hear about the Einstein Podoisky Rosen Paradox (EPR), can be framed into the diverse ways of using or misusing the principle of ``collapse,`` (a principle, which according to Wigner, is very attractive, but not very informative). To make their points, they will mainly use the model [Lamehi-Rachti, Mittig, Phys. Rev. D14 (1976)] of two free protons scattering in the well known state of singlet, ud-du = SS, according to the Pauli Principle. (An equivalent description can be done with the polarization of photons.) The authors ask the important question whether, on separation, the two fermions will remain in the state SS, where neither proton has a definite state and the whole two fermion system has exactly zero component in any direction.

Related papers

Research on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

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

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.

•Jun 1, 1989•0 citations

Research on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Final report

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

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.

•Jun 1, 1989•0 citations

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

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

Locality and nonlocality in quantum mechanics: A two-proton EPR experiment

Roy Mcweeny, C. Amovilli

Two “thought experiments” are central to most discussions of the famous EPR paradox: Experiment 1, in which two electrons with spins initially coupled to total spin S are carried apart to a great distance (e.g., in a molecular dissociation process), and Experiment 2, which is similar but refers to two bare protons. The crucial question to be asked is whether the spin coupling will be conserved at all distances: if it is, then the system exhibits “nonlocality” (the two particles stay “correlated” in some way, even at infinite distance) and thus violates Einstein's principle of locality—which denies that possibility. A recent discussion of Experiment 1 shows that nonlocality is the rule only up to a point at which the singlet–triplet interval is small enough to be bridged by weak interaction with the “heat bath” in which the system is embedded: Beyond that point, the system is no longer described by a wave function but instead by a statistical ensemble. When ensemble averaging is admitted, the spin-correlation function Qc(r1, r2) decreases to zero at all points in space and the coupling is broken; the particles are then independent and neither can be influenced by its previous interaction with the other. In the present work, the same approach is used to discuss the two-proton system (Experiment 2). The conclusions are similar: The protons are described by appropriate wave packets, with an initial overlap sufficient to give a substantial singlet–triplet separation ΔE, and, again, the spin coupling is broken when the overlap (and, consequently, ΔE) decreases to a sufficiently small value. ©1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Int J Quant Chem 74: 573–584, 1999

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry•Jan 1, 1999•5 citations

ON AERTS’ OVERLOOKED SOLUTION TO THE EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX

Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox was enunciated in 1935 and since then it has made a lot of ink flow. Being a subtle result, it has also been largely misunderstood. Indeed, if questioned about its solution, many physicists will still affirm today that the paradox has been solved by the Bell-test experimental results, which have shown that entangled states are real. However, this remains a wrong view, as the validity of the EPR ex-absurdum reasoning is independent from the Bell-test experiments, and the possible structural shortcomings it evidenced cannot be eliminated. These were correctly identified by the Belgian physicist Diederik Aerts, in the eighties of last century, and are about the inability of the quantum formalism to describe separate physical systems. The purpose of the present article is to bring Aerts' overlooked result to the attention again of the physics' community, explaining its content and implications.

arXiv:1805.02869•Nov 20, 2018•2 citations
The authors believe that much of the contradiction they hear about the Einstein Podoisky Rosen Paradox (EPR), can be framed into the diverse ways of using or misusing the principle of collapse, (a principle, which according to Wigner, is very attractive, but not very informative). To make their points, they will mainly use the model [Lamehi-Rachti, Mittig, Phys. Rev. D14 (1976)] of two free protons scattering in the well known state of singlet, ud-du = SS, according to the Pauli Principle. (An equivalent description can be done with the polarization of photons.) The authors ask the important question whether, on separation, the two fermions will remain in the state SS, where neither proton has a definite state and the whole two fermion system has exactly zero component in any direction.
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.
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.
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.
Two “thought experiments” are central to most discussions of the famous EPR paradox: Experiment 1, in which two electrons with spins initially coupled to total spin S are carried apart to a great distance (e.g., in a molecular dissociation process), and Experiment 2, which is similar but refers to two bare protons. The crucial question to be asked is whether the spin coupling will be conserved at all distances: if it is, then the system exhibits “nonlocality” (the two particles stay “correlated” in some way, even at infinite distance) and thus violates Einstein's principle of locality—which denies that possibility. A recent discussion of Experiment 1 shows that nonlocality is the rule only up to a point at which the singlet–triplet interval is small enough to be bridged by weak interaction with the “heat bath” in which the system is embedded: Beyond that point, the system is no longer described by a wave function but instead by a statistical ensemble. When ensemble averaging is admitted, the spin-correlation function Qc(r1, r2) decreases to zero at all points in space and the coupling is broken; the particles are then independent and neither can be influenced by its previous interaction with the other. In the present work, the same approach is used to discuss the two-proton system (Experiment 2). The conclusions are similar: The protons are described by appropriate wave packets, with an initial overlap sufficient to give a substantial singlet–triplet separation ΔE, and, again, the spin coupling is broken when the overlap (and, consequently, ΔE) decreases to a sufficiently small value. ©1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Int J Quant Chem 74: 573–584, 1999
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox was enunciated in 1935 and since then it has made a lot of ink flow. Being a subtle result, it has also been largely misunderstood. Indeed, if questioned about its solution, many physicists will still affirm today that the paradox has been solved by the Bell-test experimental results, which have shown that entangled states are real. However, this remains a wrong view, as the validity of the EPR ex-absurdum reasoning is independent from the Bell-test experiments, and the possible structural shortcomings it evidenced cannot be eliminated. These were correctly identified by the Belgian physicist Diederik Aerts, in the eighties of last century, and are about the inability of the quantum formalism to describe separate physical systems. The purpose of the present article is to bring Aerts' overlooked result to the attention again of the physics' community, explaining its content and implications.