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

Journal of Lasers Optics & Photonics

Theory of Augmented Quantum Reality

Solomon Budnik

Published Jan 1, 2016• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We present here our quantum propagation and entanglement system for virtual reality remote space computers and TVs with photonic displays in laser activated imagery. This concept is based on 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory. Einstein maintains “the interpretation, according to which |ψ|² expresses the probability that this particle is found at a given point, assumes an entirely peculiar mechanism of action at a distance, which prevents the wave continuously distributed in space from producing an action in two places on the screen. Einstein continues: “in my opinion, one can remove this objection only in the following way, that one does not describe the process solely by the Schrodinger wave, but that at the same time one localizes the particle during propagation

DOI
10.4172/2469-410x.1000133

Related papers

Augmented Quantum Reality

Solomon Budnik

We present here our quantum propagation system for virtual reality remote space computers and TVs with photonic displays in laser activated imagery.

•Jul 1, 2015•0 citations

Teleportation and computation

Sander Bais

In 1935 Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, confronted quantum physics with a profound objection concerning the quantessential property of entanglement. This led to a fierce debate between Bohr and Einstein closely followed by Schrödinger. In those days the problem was presented as a gedanken experiment involving a pair of spins or qubits which are entangled but widely separated in space. One may think of a spin-less particle at rest (a π 0 particle for example) decaying into two photons, because of momentum conservation both particles will fly off back to back and because of spin conservation the polarizations of the two photons have to be opposite. This means that without interactions the particles could separate and travel a long way, and we could imagine that one might arrive in New York and the other in Tokyo where Alice and Bob will make polarization measurements. The polarization state of the entangled pair is given by: II.4.1 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="block"> | ψ N T 〉 = 1 2 ( | 1 , − 1 〉 − | − 1 , 1 〉 ) , where the first entry refers to the NY particle and the second to its Tokyo counterpart, and we for convenience have assumed the particles to be polarized in z-direction. Now Alice in New York decides to make a polarization measurement. Let us suppose that she chooses to do this along the x-axis, and let us also suppose that she finds a value +1. Then we know that the first spin is projected on the |+〉 state. But as the spins are opposite it follows that instantaneously the spin of the particle in Tokyo must have changed to the |−〉 state. That this indeed has to be the case follows from the fact that we could have written the initial state also in the form Figure II.4.1 The Myth of Depth, a 1984 painting by Mark Tensey. It makes you think of unusual, if not magical, ways information may propagate. It is the ‘Spooky action at a distance,' Einstein was so worried about. A painting depicts a group of people on a boat in turbulent water, with one person standing on the waves, symbolizing unusual information propagation. https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" content-type="colour" xlink:href=" https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003701910/fd855ea7-f0f9-410f-a832-a3a1a2a2ce55/content/figII_4_1_C.jpg "/> (Source: ANP / Mark Garlick / Science Photo Library) https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="block"> | ψ N T 〉 = 1 2 ( | − , + 〉 − | + . − 〉 ) , and Alice’s projects on the first term as we discussed in the previous section, so after Alice’s measurement we have ψ NT ⇒ | +.−〉. If Bob also decides to measure along the x-axis, then he will obtain the value −1. It is clear that the probalities for measurement outcomes can be precisely calculated for all possible independent choices that Alice and Bob could make.

Routledge eBooks•Oct 1, 2025•0 citations

A bolt from the blue: the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox

N. David Mermin

Over fifty years ago Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published a striking argument that quantum theory provides only an incomplete description of physical reality – that is, that some elements of physical reality fail to have a counterpart in quantum-theoretical description. What made this a challenge to the quantum-theoretical Weltanschauung was the very mild character of the sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity on which their argument hinged: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.” The argument consists in pointing out that it is possible to construct a quantum-mechanical state ψ with the following properties: The state ψ describes two noninteracting systems (I and II). In almost all discussions the two systems are taken to be two particles, and the absence of relevant interaction is built in by taking ψ to assign negligible probability to finding the particles closer together than some macroscopically large distance. By measuring an observable A of system I, one can predict with certainty the result of a subsequent measurement of a corresponding observable P of system II. If, instead, one chooses to measure a different observable B of system I, one can predict with certainty the result of a subsequent measurement of a corresponding observable Q of system II. The observables P and Q are represented in quantum theory by noncommuting operators, which means that they cannot both have definite values.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 15, 1990•0 citations

Quantum Entanglement: Fundamentals and Relations with Consciousness/Mind

Mustafa Erol

The “spooky action at a distance” and consequently quantum entanglement of physical systems/particles has been debated ever since the famous paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen-EPR Paradox (Einstein et al., 1935). In spite of being considered of highly controversial, there has been a considerable amount of work so far addressing the issue and many scientifically successful experiments were recently carried out proving that the entanglement is a physical reality (Horodecki et al., 2009). The influence of quantum mechanics and entanglement has been far from the imagination of most scientists, eventually reaching to the ultimate concept of consciousness/mind. The entanglement theory, its connection to the consciousness/mind and finally the entanglement theory of consciousness/mind therefore demands pure scientific interest. In order to maintain the requirements, the present work firstly summarizes the quantum entanglement theory together with its relations with Bell’s inequality and finally describes an “entanglement model of consciousness/mind”.

NeuroQuantology•Sep 16, 2010•9 citations

Lasers in Quantum Information Science

Pradip Narayan Ghosh

This chapter discusses some of the guiding principles on systems based optical photons from lasers. Optical photons constitute suitable physical system to represent a qubit. The orthodox view of quantum mechanics is that after the measurement the system collapses to a wave function that gives the result of measurement of the physical property. But according to the realistic view of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), the system has the property even before the measurement since it gives a certain result in the measurement. Hence according to EPR paradox quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory, since there is some external information that is necessary for interpretation of physical reality. In quantum information science the qubit levels are usually denoted as |0> and |1>. An important application of quantum entanglement is quantum teleportation or quantum information transfer. In this process, a quantum state is transferred from one place to another that may be wide apart.

CRC Press eBooks•Feb 19, 2018•0 citations

Action at a distance and causality in quantum theory

Jerome Blackman

The relation between quantum theory and special relativity is peculiar. On the one hand it is close and essential. Steven Weinberg [1], for example, takes the position that the standard model is an inevitable consequence of the marriage of the two theories. On the other, the action at a distance implied by the famous paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen [2] is certainly contrary to the implications of special relativity in spite of the fact that it does not allow transmission of information. The setting of quantum theory is a Hilbert spaceH and a path inH whose development in time is governed by a one parameter group of unitary transformations while the setting for special relativity can be thought of as Minkowski space with the time development not absolute, but dependent on the inertial system of the observer. The problem is to show how these two very different viewpoints can be reconciled in a way that includes an explanation of the "action at a distance" conundrum.

arXiv:1310.7438•Oct 28, 2013•0 citations
We present here our quantum propagation and entanglement system for virtual reality remote space computers and TVs with photonic displays in laser activated imagery. This concept is based on 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory. Einstein maintains “the interpretation, according to which |ψ|² expresses the probability that this particle is found at a given point, assumes an entirely peculiar mechanism of action at a distance, which prevents the wave continuously distributed in space from producing an action in two places on the screen. Einstein continues: “in my opinion, one can remove this objection only in the following way, that one does not describe the process solely by the Schrodinger wave, but that at the same time one localizes the particle during propagation
In 1935 Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, confronted quantum physics with a profound objection concerning the quantessential property of entanglement. This led to a fierce debate between Bohr and Einstein closely followed by Schrödinger. In those days the problem was presented as a gedanken experiment involving a pair of spins or qubits which are entangled but widely separated in space. One may think of a spin-less particle at rest (a π 0 particle for example) decaying into two photons, because of momentum conservation both particles will fly off back to back and because of spin conservation the polarizations of the two photons have to be opposite. This means that without interactions the particles could separate and travel a long way, and we could imagine that one might arrive in New York and the other in Tokyo where Alice and Bob will make polarization measurements. The polarization state of the entangled pair is given by: II.4.1 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="block"> | ψ N T 〉 = 1 2 ( | 1 , − 1 〉 − | − 1 , 1 〉 ) , where the first entry refers to the NY particle and the second to its Tokyo counterpart, and we for convenience have assumed the particles to be polarized in z-direction. Now Alice in New York decides to make a polarization measurement. Let us suppose that she chooses to do this along the x-axis, and let us also suppose that she finds a value +1. Then we know that the first spin is projected on the |+〉 state. But as the spins are opposite it follows that instantaneously the spin of the particle in Tokyo must have changed to the |−〉 state. That this indeed has to be the case follows from the fact that we could have written the initial state also in the form Figure II.4.1 The Myth of Depth, a 1984 painting by Mark Tensey. It makes you think of unusual, if not magical, ways information may propagate. It is the ‘Spooky action at a distance,' Einstein was so worried about. A painting depicts a group of people on a boat in turbulent water, with one person standing on the waves, symbolizing unusual information propagation. https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" content-type="colour" xlink:href=" https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003701910/fd855ea7-f0f9-410f-a832-a3a1a2a2ce55/content/figII_4_1_C.jpg "/> (Source: ANP / Mark Garlick / Science Photo Library) https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="block"> | ψ N T 〉 = 1 2 ( | − , + 〉 − | + . − 〉 ) , and Alice’s projects on the first term as we discussed in the previous section, so after Alice’s measurement we have ψ NT ⇒ | +.−〉. If Bob also decides to measure along the x-axis, then he will obtain the value −1. It is clear that the probalities for measurement outcomes can be precisely calculated for all possible independent choices that Alice and Bob could make.
Over fifty years ago Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published a striking argument that quantum theory provides only an incomplete description of physical reality – that is, that some elements of physical reality fail to have a counterpart in quantum-theoretical description. What made this a challenge to the quantum-theoretical Weltanschauung was the very mild character of the sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity on which their argument hinged: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.” The argument consists in pointing out that it is possible to construct a quantum-mechanical state ψ with the following properties: The state ψ describes two noninteracting systems (I and II). In almost all discussions the two systems are taken to be two particles, and the absence of relevant interaction is built in by taking ψ to assign negligible probability to finding the particles closer together than some macroscopically large distance. By measuring an observable A of system I, one can predict with certainty the result of a subsequent measurement of a corresponding observable P of system II. If, instead, one chooses to measure a different observable B of system I, one can predict with certainty the result of a subsequent measurement of a corresponding observable Q of system II. The observables P and Q are represented in quantum theory by noncommuting operators, which means that they cannot both have definite values.
The “spooky action at a distance” and consequently quantum entanglement of physical systems/particles has been debated ever since the famous paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen-EPR Paradox (Einstein et al., 1935). In spite of being considered of highly controversial, there has been a considerable amount of work so far addressing the issue and many scientifically successful experiments were recently carried out proving that the entanglement is a physical reality (Horodecki et al., 2009). The influence of quantum mechanics and entanglement has been far from the imagination of most scientists, eventually reaching to the ultimate concept of consciousness/mind. The entanglement theory, its connection to the consciousness/mind and finally the entanglement theory of consciousness/mind therefore demands pure scientific interest. In order to maintain the requirements, the present work firstly summarizes the quantum entanglement theory together with its relations with Bell’s inequality and finally describes an “entanglement model of consciousness/mind”.
This chapter discusses some of the guiding principles on systems based optical photons from lasers. Optical photons constitute suitable physical system to represent a qubit. The orthodox view of quantum mechanics is that after the measurement the system collapses to a wave function that gives the result of measurement of the physical property. But according to the realistic view of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), the system has the property even before the measurement since it gives a certain result in the measurement. Hence according to EPR paradox quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory, since there is some external information that is necessary for interpretation of physical reality. In quantum information science the qubit levels are usually denoted as |0> and |1>. An important application of quantum entanglement is quantum teleportation or quantum information transfer. In this process, a quantum state is transferred from one place to another that may be wide apart.
The relation between quantum theory and special relativity is peculiar. On the one hand it is close and essential. Steven Weinberg [1], for example, takes the position that the standard model is an inevitable consequence of the marriage of the two theories. On the other, the action at a distance implied by the famous paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen [2] is certainly contrary to the implications of special relativity in spite of the fact that it does not allow transmission of information. The setting of quantum theory is a Hilbert spaceH and a path inH whose development in time is governed by a one parameter group of unitary transformations while the setting for special relativity can be thought of as Minkowski space with the time development not absolute, but dependent on the inertial system of the observer. The problem is to show how these two very different viewpoints can be reconciled in a way that includes an explanation of the "action at a distance" conundrum.