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

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Optical Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen experiments

Harry Paul

Published May 20, 2004• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Polarization entangled photon pairs Throughout his life, Albert Einstein was never reconciled to quantum theory being an essentially indeterministic description of natural processes, even though he himself contributed fundamental ideas to its development. “God does not play dice” was his inner conviction. In his opinion, quantum theory was only makeshift. His doubts about the completeness of the quantum mechanical description were expressed concisely in a paper published jointly with Podolsky and Rosen (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, 1935). This paper analyzes a sophisticated Gedanken experiment, now famous as the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox, which has excited theoreticians ever since. The Gedanken experiment was recently realized in a laboratory. The analyzed objects are photon pairs – and this is what has motivated us to dedicate a chapter to this problem which has bearing upon the foundations of quantum mechanics. The photon pairs are formed by two photons generated in sequence (in a so-called cascade transition, as shown in Fig. 11.1). Due to the validity of the angular momentum conservation law (discussed in Section 6.9) for the elementary emission process, the two photons exhibit specifically quantum mechanical correlations, which are incompatible with the classical reality concept, as will be discussed in detail below. How do the correlations appear in detail? Let us assume the initial state of the atom to be a state with angular momentum (spin) J = 0, the intermediate state to have angular momentum J = 1, and the final state to have again J = 0.

DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511616754.012

Related papers

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment using a pair of light quanta produced by nonlinear optical parametric downconversion

C. O. Alley, Yanhua H. Shih

The first experiment to realize Bohm’s gedanken experiment, inspired by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in their famous paper published in 1935,1 was a measurement of the polarization correlation between a pair of high-energy photons produced by the spin zero positronium annihilation.2

Journal of the Optical Society of America B•Apr 26, 1987•0 citations

From Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox to quantum nonlocality: experimental investigation of quantum correlations

Jin‐Shi Xu, Chuan‐Feng Li, Guang‐Can Guo

In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen published their influential paper proposing a now famous paradox (the EPR paradox) that threw doubt on the completeness of quantum mechanics. Two fundamental concepts: entanglement and steering, were given in the response to the EPR paper by Schrodinger, which both reflect the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics. In 1964, John Bell obtained an experimentally testable inequality, in which its violation contradicts the prediction of local hidden variable models and agrees with that of quantum mechanics. Since then, great efforts have been made to experimentally investigate the nonlocal feature of quantum mechanics and many distinguished quantum properties were observed. In this work, along with the discussion of the development of quantum nonlocality, we would focus on our recent experimental efforts in investigating quantum correlations and their applications with optical systems, including the study of entanglement-assisted entropic uncertainty principle, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering and the dynamics of quantum correlations.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Nov 3, 2016•0 citations

What can be hidden in a pair of photons?

Alastair I. M. Rae

Albert Einstein's comment that ‘God does not play dice’ sums up the way many people react when they first encounter the ideas discussed in the previous chapters. How can it be that some future events are not completely determined by the way things are at present? How can a cause have two or more possible effects? If the choice of future events is not determined by natural laws does it mean that some supernatural force (God?) is involved wherever a quantum event occurs? Questions of this kind trouble many students of physics, though most get used to the conceptual problems, say ‘Nature is just like that’ and apply the ideas of quantum physics to their study or research without worrying about their fundamental truth or falsity. Some, however, never get used to the, at least apparent, contradictions. Others believe that the fundamental processes underlying the basic physics of the universe must be describable in deterministic, or at least realistic, terms and are therefore attracted by hidden-variable theories. Einstein was one of those. He stood out obstinately against the growing consensus of opinion in the 1920s and 30s that was prepared to accept indeterminism and the lack of objective realism as a price to be paid for a theory that was proving so successful in a wide variety of practical situations. Ironically, however, Einstein's greatest contribution to the field was not some subtle explanation of the underlying structure of quantum physics but the exposure of yet another surprising consequence of quantum theory.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 7, 2004•0 citations

What can be hidden in a pair of photons?

Alastair I. M. Rae

Albert Einstein's comment that ‘God does not play dice’ sums up the way many people react when they first encounter the ideas discussed in the previous chapters. How can it be that some future events are not completely determined by the way things are at present? How can a cause have two or more possible effects? If the choice of future events is not determined by natural laws does it mean that some supernatural force (God?) is involved wherever a quantum event occurs? Questions of this kind trouble many students of physics, though most get used to the conceptual problems, say ‘Nature is just like that’ and apply the ideas of quantum physics to their study or research without worrying about their fundamental truth or falsity. Some, however, never get used to the, at least apparent, contradictions. Others believe that the fundamental processes underlying the basic physics of the universe must be describable in deterministic, or at least realistic, terms and are therefore attracted by hidden-variable theories. Einstein was one of those. He stood out obstinately against the growing consensus of opinion in the 1920s and 30s that was prepared to accept indeterminism and the lack of objective realism as a price to be paid for a theory that was proving so successful in a wide variety of practical situations. Ironically, however, Einstein's greatest contribution to the field was not some subtle explanation of the underlying structure of quantum physics but the exposure of yet another surprising consequence of quantum theory.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 26, 2012•0 citations

Relativity, entanglement and the physical reality of the photon

Suresh Chandra Tiwari

Recent experiments on the classic Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) setting claim to test the compatibility between nonlocal quantum entanglement and the (special) theory of relativity. Confirmation of quantum theory has led to the interpretation that Einstein's image of physical reality for each photon in the EPR pair cannot be maintained. A detailed critique on two representative experiments is presented following the original EPR notion of local realism. It is argued that relativity does not enter into the picture, however for the Bell-Bohm version of local realism in terms of hidden variables such experiments are significant. Of the two alternatives, namely incompleteness of quantum theory for describing an individual quantum system, and the ensemble view, it is only the former that has been ruled out by the experiments. An alternative approach gives a statistical ensemble interpretation of the observed data, and the significant conclusion that these experiments do not deny physical reality of the photon is obtained. After discussing the need for a photon model, a vortex structure is proposed based on the space-time invariant property-spin, and pure gauge fields. To test the prime role of spin for photons and the angular-momentum interpretation of electromagnetic fields, experimental schemes feasible in modern laboratories are suggested.

Journal of Optics B Quantum and Semiclassical Optics•Feb 15, 2002•8 citations

EINSTEIN/PODOLSKY/ROSEN ARGUMENT

In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published an important paper [17] in which they claimed that the whole formalism of quantum mechanics together with what they called "Reality Criterion" imply that quantum mechanics cannot be complete.That is, there must exist some elements of reality that are not described by quantum mechanics.There must be, they concluded, a more complete description of physical reality behind quantum mechanics.There must be a state, a hidden variable, characterizing the state of affairs in the world in more details than the quantum mechanical state, something that also reflects the missing elements of reality.Under some further but quite plausible assumptions, this conclusion implies that in some spin-correlation experiments the measured quantum mechanical probabilities should satisfy particular inequalities (Bell-type inequalities).The paradox consists in the fact that quantum probabilities do not satisfy these inequalities.And this paradoxical fact has been confirmed by several laboratory experiments in the last three decades.The problem is still open and hotly debated among both physicists and philosophers.It has motivated a wide range of research from the most fundamental quantum mechanical experiments through foundations of probability theory to the theory of stochastic causality as well as the metaphysics of free will.

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Jun 1, 2000•0 citations
Polarization entangled photon pairs Throughout his life, Albert Einstein was never reconciled to quantum theory being an essentially indeterministic description of natural processes, even though he himself contributed fundamental ideas to its development. “God does not play dice” was his inner conviction. In his opinion, quantum theory was only makeshift. His doubts about the completeness of the quantum mechanical description were expressed concisely in a paper published jointly with Podolsky and Rosen (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, 1935). This paper analyzes a sophisticated Gedanken experiment, now famous as the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox, which has excited theoreticians ever since. The Gedanken experiment was recently realized in a laboratory. The analyzed objects are photon pairs – and this is what has motivated us to dedicate a chapter to this problem which has bearing upon the foundations of quantum mechanics. The photon pairs are formed by two photons generated in sequence (in a so-called cascade transition, as shown in Fig. 11.1). Due to the validity of the angular momentum conservation law (discussed in Section 6.9) for the elementary emission process, the two photons exhibit specifically quantum mechanical correlations, which are incompatible with the classical reality concept, as will be discussed in detail below. How do the correlations appear in detail? Let us assume the initial state of the atom to be a state with angular momentum (spin) J = 0, the intermediate state to have angular momentum J = 1, and the final state to have again J = 0.
In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen published their influential paper proposing a now famous paradox (the EPR paradox) that threw doubt on the completeness of quantum mechanics. Two fundamental concepts: entanglement and steering, were given in the response to the EPR paper by Schrodinger, which both reflect the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics. In 1964, John Bell obtained an experimentally testable inequality, in which its violation contradicts the prediction of local hidden variable models and agrees with that of quantum mechanics. Since then, great efforts have been made to experimentally investigate the nonlocal feature of quantum mechanics and many distinguished quantum properties were observed. In this work, along with the discussion of the development of quantum nonlocality, we would focus on our recent experimental efforts in investigating quantum correlations and their applications with optical systems, including the study of entanglement-assisted entropic uncertainty principle, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering and the dynamics of quantum correlations.
Albert Einstein's comment that ‘God does not play dice’ sums up the way many people react when they first encounter the ideas discussed in the previous chapters. How can it be that some future events are not completely determined by the way things are at present? How can a cause have two or more possible effects? If the choice of future events is not determined by natural laws does it mean that some supernatural force (God?) is involved wherever a quantum event occurs? Questions of this kind trouble many students of physics, though most get used to the conceptual problems, say ‘Nature is just like that’ and apply the ideas of quantum physics to their study or research without worrying about their fundamental truth or falsity. Some, however, never get used to the, at least apparent, contradictions. Others believe that the fundamental processes underlying the basic physics of the universe must be describable in deterministic, or at least realistic, terms and are therefore attracted by hidden-variable theories. Einstein was one of those. He stood out obstinately against the growing consensus of opinion in the 1920s and 30s that was prepared to accept indeterminism and the lack of objective realism as a price to be paid for a theory that was proving so successful in a wide variety of practical situations. Ironically, however, Einstein's greatest contribution to the field was not some subtle explanation of the underlying structure of quantum physics but the exposure of yet another surprising consequence of quantum theory.
Albert Einstein's comment that ‘God does not play dice’ sums up the way many people react when they first encounter the ideas discussed in the previous chapters. How can it be that some future events are not completely determined by the way things are at present? How can a cause have two or more possible effects? If the choice of future events is not determined by natural laws does it mean that some supernatural force (God?) is involved wherever a quantum event occurs? Questions of this kind trouble many students of physics, though most get used to the conceptual problems, say ‘Nature is just like that’ and apply the ideas of quantum physics to their study or research without worrying about their fundamental truth or falsity. Some, however, never get used to the, at least apparent, contradictions. Others believe that the fundamental processes underlying the basic physics of the universe must be describable in deterministic, or at least realistic, terms and are therefore attracted by hidden-variable theories. Einstein was one of those. He stood out obstinately against the growing consensus of opinion in the 1920s and 30s that was prepared to accept indeterminism and the lack of objective realism as a price to be paid for a theory that was proving so successful in a wide variety of practical situations. Ironically, however, Einstein's greatest contribution to the field was not some subtle explanation of the underlying structure of quantum physics but the exposure of yet another surprising consequence of quantum theory.
Recent experiments on the classic Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) setting claim to test the compatibility between nonlocal quantum entanglement and the (special) theory of relativity. Confirmation of quantum theory has led to the interpretation that Einstein's image of physical reality for each photon in the EPR pair cannot be maintained. A detailed critique on two representative experiments is presented following the original EPR notion of local realism. It is argued that relativity does not enter into the picture, however for the Bell-Bohm version of local realism in terms of hidden variables such experiments are significant. Of the two alternatives, namely incompleteness of quantum theory for describing an individual quantum system, and the ensemble view, it is only the former that has been ruled out by the experiments. An alternative approach gives a statistical ensemble interpretation of the observed data, and the significant conclusion that these experiments do not deny physical reality of the photon is obtained. After discussing the need for a photon model, a vortex structure is proposed based on the space-time invariant property-spin, and pure gauge fields. To test the prime role of spin for photons and the angular-momentum interpretation of electromagnetic fields, experimental schemes feasible in modern laboratories are suggested.
In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published an important paper [17] in which they claimed that the whole formalism of quantum mechanics together with what they called "Reality Criterion" imply that quantum mechanics cannot be complete.That is, there must exist some elements of reality that are not described by quantum mechanics.There must be, they concluded, a more complete description of physical reality behind quantum mechanics.There must be a state, a hidden variable, characterizing the state of affairs in the world in more details than the quantum mechanical state, something that also reflects the missing elements of reality.Under some further but quite plausible assumptions, this conclusion implies that in some spin-correlation experiments the measured quantum mechanical probabilities should satisfy particular inequalities (Bell-type inequalities).The paradox consists in the fact that quantum probabilities do not satisfy these inequalities.And this paradoxical fact has been confirmed by several laboratory experiments in the last three decades.The problem is still open and hotly debated among both physicists and philosophers.It has motivated a wide range of research from the most fundamental quantum mechanical experiments through foundations of probability theory to the theory of stochastic causality as well as the metaphysics of free will.