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

American Journal of Physics

Correlations in separated quantum systems: A consistent history analysis of the EPR problem

Robert B. Griffiths

Published Jan 1, 1987• 109 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The familiar problem of two separated, noninteracting spin- 1/2 particles in a state of zero total spin is analyzed using the consistent history interpretation of quantum mechanics and shown to behave in many respects like a classical system of two noninteracting objects whose individual properties are unknown but strongly correlated with each other. There is no action at a distance between the particles and a measurement on one has no effect whatsoever on the other. However, the result of a measurement of a spin component of one of the particles can be used to infer (correctly) its value prior to the measurement, and also the corresponding spin component of the other particle at all times prior to when that particle interacts with something else. In these respects the quantum system behaves like its classical counterpart. On the other hand, the paradoxical (nonclassical) aspects of the quantum situation seem to be precisely those already present in the quantum theory of a single particle.

DOI
10.1119/1.14965

Related papers

The EPR paradox and the uncertainty principle

M. E. McCulloch, Jaume Giné

The EPR paradox appears when measurement results of some properties of two distantly entangled particles are correlated in a way that cannot be explained classically, and apparently violate locality. The resolution of the paradox depends on one’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. Explanations from quantum mechanics remain commonplace today, but they fail to explain the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) paradox totally in a way than can be accepted by the whole community. Here, we present a simple resolution to this paradox in which the uncertainty in the energy of the two-particle system is reduced by its lack of interaction during the journey so that the uncertainty in time becomes greater than the time they have been separating. Consequently, the present and past become indistinguishable because when we measure an observable in the system its value is the same as if the two particle were still together or very close. It is also argued that the destruction of information as the present and past become identical should release heat by Landauer’s principle, and this might make this proposal testable.

Modern Physics Letters B•Jan 18, 2021•2 citations

EPR paradox and Bell inequalities

Robert B. Griffiths

Bohm version of the EPR paradox Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) were concerned with the following issue. Given two spatially separated quantum systems A and B and an appropriate initial entangled state, a measurement of a property on system A can be an indirect measurement of B in the sense that from the outcome of the A measurement one can infer with probability 1 a property of B , because the two systems are correlated. There are cases in which either of two properties of B represented by noncommuting projectors can be measured indirectly in this manner, and EPR argued that this implied that system B could possess two incompatible properties at the same time, contrary to the principles of quantum theory. In order to understand this argument, it is best to apply it to a specific model system, and we shall do so using Bohm's formulation of the EPR paradox in which the systems A and B are two spin-half particles a and b in two different regions of space, with their spin degrees of freedom initially in a spin singlet state (23.2). As an aid to later discussion, we write the argument in the form of a set of numbered assertions leading to a paradox: a result which seems plausible, but contradicts the basic principles of quantum theory. The assertions E1–E4 are not intended to be exact counterparts of statements in the original EPR paper, even when the latter are translated into the language of spin-half particles. However, the general idea is very similar, and the basic conundrum is the same.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 29, 2001•1 citation

On the EPR paradox and local causality principle

Zbigniew Zimpel

Formulas for calculating the joint probability of outcomes of measurements performed on mutually non-interacting component systems of a combined system prepared in an entangled state are presented. The formulas are based on non-relativistic quantum mechanics. An interpretation of the joint probability which conforms to the principle of local causality is proposed. The joint probability of outcomes of spin measurements performed on the well-known system of two spatially separated spin-1/2 particles prepared initially in the singlet state is used to illustrate the proposed interpretation of theoretical and experimental results.

arXiv:2112.04383•Nov 29, 2021•0 citations

There is no spooky action-at-a-distance in quantum correlations: Resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen nonlocality puzzle

C. S. Unnikrishnan

The long-standing puzzle of the nonlocal Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations is resolved. The correct quantum mechanical correlations arise for the case of entangled particles when strict locality is assumed for the probability amplitudes instead of locality for probabilities. Locality of amplitudes implies that measurement on one particle does not collapse the companion particle to a definite state. Sixty five years ago, the most significant paper questioning a fundamental aspect of quantum phenomena was written by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) [1]. They addressed the question whether the wave-function represented a complete description of reality in quantum mechanics, and argued that it didn’t. Bohr’s reply to this paper [2] was not sufficient to resolve the fundamental issues raised by EPR. Decades later, Bohm rephrased the EPR problem [3] in terms of particles correlated in their spin and this helped enormously in analyzing the problem with clarity. John Bell analyzed the EPR problem in the early sixties and established the Bell’s inequalities obeyed by

•Jan 1, 2008•0 citations

Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements

Alice M. Aredes, Pablo L. Saldanha

Many quantum paradoxes based on a realistic view of weak values were discussed in the last decades. They lead to astonishing conclusions such as the measurement of a spin component of a spin-1/2 particle resulting in $100\ensuremath{\hbar}$, the separation of a photon from its polarization, and the possibility of having three particles in two boxes without any two particles being in the same box, among others. Here, we show that the realistic view of the weak values present in these (and other) works is equivalent to a realistic (and highly controversial) view of quantum measurements, where a measurement reveals the underlying reality of the measured quantity. We discuss that all quantum paradoxes based on weak values simply disappear if we deny these realistic views of quantum measurements and weak values. Our work thus aims to demonstrate the strong assumptions and the corresponding problems present in the interpretation of these quantum paradoxes.

arXiv:2402.09879•Physical Review A•Feb 26, 2024•8 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
The familiar problem of two separated, noninteracting spin- 1/2 particles in a state of zero total spin is analyzed using the consistent history interpretation of quantum mechanics and shown to behave in many respects like a classical system of two noninteracting objects whose individual properties are unknown but strongly correlated with each other. There is no action at a distance between the particles and a measurement on one has no effect whatsoever on the other. However, the result of a measurement of a spin component of one of the particles can be used to infer (correctly) its value prior to the measurement, and also the corresponding spin component of the other particle at all times prior to when that particle interacts with something else. In these respects the quantum system behaves like its classical counterpart. On the other hand, the paradoxical (nonclassical) aspects of the quantum situation seem to be precisely those already present in the quantum theory of a single particle.
The EPR paradox appears when measurement results of some properties of two distantly entangled particles are correlated in a way that cannot be explained classically, and apparently violate locality. The resolution of the paradox depends on one’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. Explanations from quantum mechanics remain commonplace today, but they fail to explain the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) paradox totally in a way than can be accepted by the whole community. Here, we present a simple resolution to this paradox in which the uncertainty in the energy of the two-particle system is reduced by its lack of interaction during the journey so that the uncertainty in time becomes greater than the time they have been separating. Consequently, the present and past become indistinguishable because when we measure an observable in the system its value is the same as if the two particle were still together or very close. It is also argued that the destruction of information as the present and past become identical should release heat by Landauer’s principle, and this might make this proposal testable.
Bohm version of the EPR paradox Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) were concerned with the following issue. Given two spatially separated quantum systems A and B and an appropriate initial entangled state, a measurement of a property on system A can be an indirect measurement of B in the sense that from the outcome of the A measurement one can infer with probability 1 a property of B , because the two systems are correlated. There are cases in which either of two properties of B represented by noncommuting projectors can be measured indirectly in this manner, and EPR argued that this implied that system B could possess two incompatible properties at the same time, contrary to the principles of quantum theory. In order to understand this argument, it is best to apply it to a specific model system, and we shall do so using Bohm's formulation of the EPR paradox in which the systems A and B are two spin-half particles a and b in two different regions of space, with their spin degrees of freedom initially in a spin singlet state (23.2). As an aid to later discussion, we write the argument in the form of a set of numbered assertions leading to a paradox: a result which seems plausible, but contradicts the basic principles of quantum theory. The assertions E1–E4 are not intended to be exact counterparts of statements in the original EPR paper, even when the latter are translated into the language of spin-half particles. However, the general idea is very similar, and the basic conundrum is the same.
Formulas for calculating the joint probability of outcomes of measurements performed on mutually non-interacting component systems of a combined system prepared in an entangled state are presented. The formulas are based on non-relativistic quantum mechanics. An interpretation of the joint probability which conforms to the principle of local causality is proposed. The joint probability of outcomes of spin measurements performed on the well-known system of two spatially separated spin-1/2 particles prepared initially in the singlet state is used to illustrate the proposed interpretation of theoretical and experimental results.
The long-standing puzzle of the nonlocal Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations is resolved. The correct quantum mechanical correlations arise for the case of entangled particles when strict locality is assumed for the probability amplitudes instead of locality for probabilities. Locality of amplitudes implies that measurement on one particle does not collapse the companion particle to a definite state. Sixty five years ago, the most significant paper questioning a fundamental aspect of quantum phenomena was written by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) [1]. They addressed the question whether the wave-function represented a complete description of reality in quantum mechanics, and argued that it didn’t. Bohr’s reply to this paper [2] was not sufficient to resolve the fundamental issues raised by EPR. Decades later, Bohm rephrased the EPR problem [3] in terms of particles correlated in their spin and this helped enormously in analyzing the problem with clarity. John Bell analyzed the EPR problem in the early sixties and established the Bell’s inequalities obeyed by
Many quantum paradoxes based on a realistic view of weak values were discussed in the last decades. They lead to astonishing conclusions such as the measurement of a spin component of a spin-1/2 particle resulting in $100\ensuremath{\hbar}$, the separation of a photon from its polarization, and the possibility of having three particles in two boxes without any two particles being in the same box, among others. Here, we show that the realistic view of the weak values present in these (and other) works is equivalent to a realistic (and highly controversial) view of quantum measurements, where a measurement reveals the underlying reality of the measured quantity. We discuss that all quantum paradoxes based on weak values simply disappear if we deny these realistic views of quantum measurements and weak values. Our work thus aims to demonstrate the strong assumptions and the corresponding problems present in the interpretation of these quantum paradoxes.
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.