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

Quantum Impedances, Entanglement, and State Reduction

P. Cameron, Strongarm Studios

Published Mar 1, 2013• 7 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

The measurement problem, the mechanism of quantum state reduction, has remained an open question for nearly a century. The ‘quantum weirdness’ of the problem was highlighted by the introduction of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in 1935. Motivated by Bell’s Theorem, nonlocality was first experimentally observed in 1972 by Clauser and Freedman in the entangled states of an EPR experiment, and is now an accepted fact. Special relativity requires that no energy is transferred in the nonlocal collapse of these entangled two-body wavefunctions, that no work is done, no information communicated. In the family of quantum impedances those which are scale invariant, the Lorentz and centrifugal impedances, satisfy this requirement. This letter explores their role in the collapse of the wave function.

Related papers

On Wavefunction Collapse, the Einstein-Poldolsky-Rosen Paradox and Measurement in Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory

Stuart Samuel

We first consider the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox for the system of two particles with spin 1/2 with entangled spins in first-quantized quantum mechanics (QM). If measurement is governed by wavefunction collapse, then gedanken experiments show that a number of fundamental principles including conservation of angular momentum and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be violated. We conclude that the collapse of the spin part of the wavefunction cannot happen and therefore an EPR paradox does not arise for this system. QM unitarity alone is sufficient to rule out "spooky" action at a distance. The absence of spin wavefunction collapse leads to several interesting conclusions about how measurement works in QM: When wavefunction collapse does not happen, (i) a signal from a macroscopic measuring device indicating that a system is in a state S does not necessarily mean that it is or was in S and (ii) the uncertainty in QM at the microscopic level is transmitted to uncertainty in signals for the macroscopic measuring device. We derive two general results on how quantum measurement works and illustrate them in a spin-1/2 measurement. In contrast to first-quantized QM, in quantum field theory we are unable to fully rule out the possibility of wavefunction collapse. However, when we insist on unitarity (thereby excluding the possibility of wavefunction collapse) and additionally take into account in the wavefunction all degrees of freedom involved in the measurement (including those of the equipment, experimentalists, etc.), a consistant acceptable understanding of the Bell-inequality-type experiments involving entangled photon polarizations emerges including the absence of an EPR paradox. The ability of an experimentalist to be aware of his perceptions but unable to be conscious of other components of a generalized Schrodinger Cat plays a role in resolving the Measurement Problem.

arXiv:1910.11134•Oct 22, 2019•1 citation

An experiment that proves the absence of nonlocality in quantum mechanics

C. S. Unnikrishnan

I have been arguing that quantum nonlocality, deeply entrenched in the present formalism of quantum mechanics and widely believed as a reality by physicists, is in fact absent. Spooky nonlocal state reduction is the most, and perhaps the only irrational feature of present day physics. There are experimental results that reject nonlocal state reduction at a distance. Also, there are arguments that show that signal locality itself can be violated if there is true nonlocal collapse of the wavefunction. The Bell's inequalities, the violation of which polarized physicists in favour of nonlocality, arise not due to nonlocality, but due to ignoring prior information on correlations encoded in the phase of local probability amplitudes. Here I discuss an experiment involving particles entangled in energy and time variables that shows that there is no nonlocal state reduction during measurements on entangled particles. Quantum mechanics is inconsistent if it includes the concept of wavefunction collapse as a physical process for entangled multi-particle systems.

arXiv:quant-ph/0206190•Jun 27, 2002•0 citations

Nonlocal Interconnectedness as a Fundamental Principle of Reality

Two significant principles of the 20th century are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the nonlocality principles of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox [1]. Both these elements of quantum theory have major physical and philosophical implicatio like Bell’s Theorem and Space-Like Interconnect-edness and Other Collective Coherent Phenomena Involve nonlocality. We also present a discussion of the EPR paradox and other experiments that may demand a nonlocal explanation of the phenomenon they display.

Series on knots and everything•Mar 1, 2011•0 citations

Do we really understand quantum mechanics? Strange correlations, paradoxes, and theorems

Franck Laloë

This article presents a general discussion of several aspects of our present understanding of quantum mechanics. The emphasis is put on the very special correlations that this theory makes possible: They are forbidden by very general arguments based on realism and local causality. In fact, these correlations are completely impossible in any circumstance, except for very special situations designed by physicists especially to observe these purely quantum effects. Another general point that is emphasized is the necessity for the theory to predict the emergence of a single result in a single realization of an experiment. For this purpose, orthodox quantum mechanics introduces a special postulate: the reduction of the state vector, which comes in addition to the Schrödinger evolution postulate. Nevertheless, the presence in parallel of two evolution processes of the same object (the state vector) may be a potential source for conflicts; various attitudes that are possible to avoid this problem are discussed in this text. After a brief historical introduction, recalling how the very special status of the state vector has emerged in quantum mechanics, various conceptual difficulties are introduced and discussed. The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) theorem is presented with the help of a botanical parable, in a way that emphasizes how deeply the EPR reasoning is rooted into what is often called “scientific method.” In another section the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger argument, the Hardy impossibilities, as well as the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem are introduced in simple terms. The final two sections attempt to give a summary of the present situation: One section discusses nonlocality and entanglement as we see it presently, with brief mention of recent experiments; the last section contains a (nonexhaustive) list of various attitudes that are found among physicists, and that are helpful to alleviate the conceptual difficulties of quantum mechanics.

American Journal of Physics•Jun 1, 2001•204 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

On Experimental Confirmation of Quantum Physics

Young-Sik Ra, Yoon-Ho KIM

In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) argued that (then new) quantum mechanics was incomplete. At the heart of EPR’s paradox was the strange non-local nature of an entangled state which allowed EPR to simultaneously assign local values for position and momentum of a particle. In 1964, John Bell proposed an inequality (Bell’s inequality) that must be satisfied by any local realistic theory. The experimental confirmation of quantum physics, i.e., the experimental test of Bell’s inequality, required a pair of particles in an entangled state. The experiments first performed in the early 1970s, followed by a series of experiments until now, have confirmed the violation of Bell’s inequality, strongly implying that local realistic descriptions of nature are not consistent with experimental observations. The early simplistic view of entanglement has now been significantly expanded to include mixed states and multiple particles. Moreover, theoretical and experimental studies on the nature of entanglement have led to quantum information science where entanglement is an essential resource. In this article, we briefly review the early experiments on Bell’s inequality and experimental attempts to close “loopholes” as well as some key experiments on quantum information.

Physics and High Technology•Dec 28, 2022•0 citations
The measurement problem, the mechanism of quantum state reduction, has remained an open question for nearly a century. The ‘quantum weirdness’ of the problem was highlighted by the introduction of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in 1935. Motivated by Bell’s Theorem, nonlocality was first experimentally observed in 1972 by Clauser and Freedman in the entangled states of an EPR experiment, and is now an accepted fact. Special relativity requires that no energy is transferred in the nonlocal collapse of these entangled two-body wavefunctions, that no work is done, no information communicated. In the family of quantum impedances those which are scale invariant, the Lorentz and centrifugal impedances, satisfy this requirement. This letter explores their role in the collapse of the wave function.
We first consider the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox for the system of two particles with spin 1/2 with entangled spins in first-quantized quantum mechanics (QM). If measurement is governed by wavefunction collapse, then gedanken experiments show that a number of fundamental principles including conservation of angular momentum and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be violated. We conclude that the collapse of the spin part of the wavefunction cannot happen and therefore an EPR paradox does not arise for this system. QM unitarity alone is sufficient to rule out "spooky" action at a distance. The absence of spin wavefunction collapse leads to several interesting conclusions about how measurement works in QM: When wavefunction collapse does not happen, (i) a signal from a macroscopic measuring device indicating that a system is in a state S does not necessarily mean that it is or was in S and (ii) the uncertainty in QM at the microscopic level is transmitted to uncertainty in signals for the macroscopic measuring device. We derive two general results on how quantum measurement works and illustrate them in a spin-1/2 measurement. In contrast to first-quantized QM, in quantum field theory we are unable to fully rule out the possibility of wavefunction collapse. However, when we insist on unitarity (thereby excluding the possibility of wavefunction collapse) and additionally take into account in the wavefunction all degrees of freedom involved in the measurement (including those of the equipment, experimentalists, etc.), a consistant acceptable understanding of the Bell-inequality-type experiments involving entangled photon polarizations emerges including the absence of an EPR paradox. The ability of an experimentalist to be aware of his perceptions but unable to be conscious of other components of a generalized Schrodinger Cat plays a role in resolving the Measurement Problem.
I have been arguing that quantum nonlocality, deeply entrenched in the present formalism of quantum mechanics and widely believed as a reality by physicists, is in fact absent. Spooky nonlocal state reduction is the most, and perhaps the only irrational feature of present day physics. There are experimental results that reject nonlocal state reduction at a distance. Also, there are arguments that show that signal locality itself can be violated if there is true nonlocal collapse of the wavefunction. The Bell's inequalities, the violation of which polarized physicists in favour of nonlocality, arise not due to nonlocality, but due to ignoring prior information on correlations encoded in the phase of local probability amplitudes. Here I discuss an experiment involving particles entangled in energy and time variables that shows that there is no nonlocal state reduction during measurements on entangled particles. Quantum mechanics is inconsistent if it includes the concept of wavefunction collapse as a physical process for entangled multi-particle systems.
Two significant principles of the 20th century are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the nonlocality principles of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox [1]. Both these elements of quantum theory have major physical and philosophical implicatio like Bell’s Theorem and Space-Like Interconnect-edness and Other Collective Coherent Phenomena Involve nonlocality. We also present a discussion of the EPR paradox and other experiments that may demand a nonlocal explanation of the phenomenon they display.
This article presents a general discussion of several aspects of our present understanding of quantum mechanics. The emphasis is put on the very special correlations that this theory makes possible: They are forbidden by very general arguments based on realism and local causality. In fact, these correlations are completely impossible in any circumstance, except for very special situations designed by physicists especially to observe these purely quantum effects. Another general point that is emphasized is the necessity for the theory to predict the emergence of a single result in a single realization of an experiment. For this purpose, orthodox quantum mechanics introduces a special postulate: the reduction of the state vector, which comes in addition to the Schrödinger evolution postulate. Nevertheless, the presence in parallel of two evolution processes of the same object (the state vector) may be a potential source for conflicts; various attitudes that are possible to avoid this problem are discussed in this text. After a brief historical introduction, recalling how the very special status of the state vector has emerged in quantum mechanics, various conceptual difficulties are introduced and discussed. The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) theorem is presented with the help of a botanical parable, in a way that emphasizes how deeply the EPR reasoning is rooted into what is often called “scientific method.” In another section the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger argument, the Hardy impossibilities, as well as the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem are introduced in simple terms. The final two sections attempt to give a summary of the present situation: One section discusses nonlocality and entanglement as we see it presently, with brief mention of recent experiments; the last section contains a (nonexhaustive) list of various attitudes that are found among physicists, and that are helpful to alleviate the conceptual difficulties of quantum mechanics.
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
In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) argued that (then new) quantum mechanics was incomplete. At the heart of EPR’s paradox was the strange non-local nature of an entangled state which allowed EPR to simultaneously assign local values for position and momentum of a particle. In 1964, John Bell proposed an inequality (Bell’s inequality) that must be satisfied by any local realistic theory. The experimental confirmation of quantum physics, i.e., the experimental test of Bell’s inequality, required a pair of particles in an entangled state. The experiments first performed in the early 1970s, followed by a series of experiments until now, have confirmed the violation of Bell’s inequality, strongly implying that local realistic descriptions of nature are not consistent with experimental observations. The early simplistic view of entanglement has now been significantly expanded to include mixed states and multiple particles. Moreover, theoretical and experimental studies on the nature of entanglement have led to quantum information science where entanglement is an essential resource. In this article, we briefly review the early experiments on Bell’s inequality and experimental attempts to close “loopholes” as well as some key experiments on quantum information.