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

Foundations of Physics

Local deterministic description of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments

F. Selleri, Anton Zeilinger

Published Dec 1, 1988• 22 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/bf01889429

Related papers

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiments and Macroscopic Locality

K. Kraus

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1985•3 citations

Incompatibility with Local Realism in the Einstein Podolsky-Rosen Experiment.

Gina Maria Schwarz

•Jan 1, 1985•0 citations

Joint distributions and local realism in the higher-spin Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment

N. David Mermin, Gina Maria Schwarz

Foundations of Physics•Feb 1, 1982•57 citations

Bell's theorem and non-linear systems

Louis Vervoort

For all Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen–type experiments on deterministic systems the Bell inequality holds, unless non-local interactions exist between certain parts of the setup. Here we show that in non-linear systems the Bell inequality can be violated by non-local effects that are arbitrarily weak. Then we show that the quantum result of the existing Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen–type experiments can be reproduced within deterministic models that include arbitrarily weak non-local effects.

arXiv:quant-ph/0003057•Europhysics Letters (EPL)•Apr 15, 2000•9 citations

Resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Nonlocality Puzzle

C. S. Unnikrishnan

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2001•0 citations

An Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument based on weak forms of local realism not falsifiable by GHZ or Bell experiments

Fulton, Jesse, Run Yan Teh, M. D. Reid

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox gives an argument for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics based on the premises of local realism. A general view is that the argument is compromised, because EPR's premises are falsified by Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) and Bell experiments. In this paper, we present an EPR argument based on premises not falsifiable by these experiments. We propose macroscopic EPR and GHZ experiments using spins $S_θ$ defined by two macroscopically distinct states. The analyzers that realize the unitary operations $U_θ$ determining the measurement settings $θ$ are devices that create macroscopic superposition states. For a system with two macroscopically distinct states available, macroscopic realism (MR) posits a predetermined outcome for a measurement $S_θ$ distinguishing between the states. Deterministic macroscopic realism (dMR) posits MR for the system prior to the interaction $U_θ$. Weak macroscopic realism (wMR) posits MR for the system after $U_θ$, at the time $t_f$ (when the system is prepared for a final "pointer" measurement), the outcome of $S_θ$ not being changed by interactions that might occur at a remote system $B$. The premise also posits that if the outcome for $S_θ^A$ of a system $A$ can be predicted by a pointer measurement on a system $B$ defined after the interaction fixing the setting at $B$, then the outcome for $S_θ^A$ is determined at this time. The GHZ predictions negate dMR but are consistent with wMR. Yet, an EPR paradox arises based on wMR for the set-up proposed by Schrödinger, where one measures two complementary spins simultaneously, "one by direct, the other by indirect" measurement. We revisit the original EPR paradox and find similarly that an EPR argument can be based on a weak form of local realism not falsifiable by GHZ or Bell tests.

arXiv:2208.01225•Aug 2, 2022•0 citations
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox gives an argument for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics based on the premises of local realism. A general view is that the argument is compromised, because EPR's premises are falsified by Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) and Bell experiments. In this paper, we present an EPR argument based on premises not falsifiable by these experiments. We propose macroscopic EPR and GHZ experiments using spins SθS_θSθ​ defined by two macroscopically distinct states. The analyzers that realize the unitary operations UθU_θUθ​ determining the measurement settings θθθ are devices that create macroscopic superposition states. For a system with two macroscopically distinct states available, macroscopic realism (MR) posits a predetermined outcome for a measurement SθS_θSθ​ distinguishing between the states. Deterministic macroscopic realism (dMR) posits MR for the system prior to the interaction UθU_θUθ​. Weak macroscopic realism (wMR) posits MR for the system after UθU_θUθ​, at the time tft_ftf​ (when the system is prepared for a final "pointer" measurement), the outcome of SθS_θSθ​ not being changed by interactions that might occur at a remote system BBB. The premise also posits that if the outcome for SθAS_θ^ASθA​ of a system AAA can be predicted by a pointer measurement on a system BBB defined after the interaction fixing the setting at BBB, then the outcome for SθAS_θ^ASθA​ is determined at this time. The GHZ predictions negate dMR but are consistent with wMR. Yet, an EPR paradox arises based on wMR for the set-up proposed by Schrödinger, where one measures two complementary spins simultaneously, "one by direct, the other by indirect" measurement. We revisit the original EPR paradox and find similarly that an EPR argument can be based on a weak form of local realism not falsifiable by GHZ or Bell tests.